“Wherefore,
strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our
predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by
our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and
declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been,
and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”—Pope Leo XIII.
I’ve decided
to pose the question “Does the Catholic
Church recognise Anglican Ordinations as Valid?” because of what I
witnessed recently at a Novus Ordo funeral Mass held at Holy Cross Cathedral,
Lagos, on Friday, March 11, 2016. It was the funeral of Prof. Peter Ajibade Rokosu,
a very simple and humble man. Prof. Rokosu was fondly called “a church goer” by
his friends, and YES, he was truly a church goer. I had known him for years. We
used to attend 10 am (Novus Ordo) High Mass at the cathedral. Not just that,
every Sunday we used to sit on the same pew, in fact beside each other! Despite
that “closeness”, I never knew he was a Professor until years later when
members of Catholic Men Organisation (CMO) in the cathedral asked me to edit
their book, “Ten Years of CMO”. It
was during the course of the editing that I read Rokosu’s profile and got to
know that the simple-minded man that usually sat beside me was not just a
Professor but in fact a great scholar.
Prof. Rokosu, 76, attended Trinity College, Dublin, where he obtained his First Degree in
Biochemistry and Microbiology, Reading University, England (M.sc Food Science
and Technology), and Leeds University for his PhD in Biochemistry—all from 1965
to 1975. He returned to Nigeria in 1975 and began lecturing at the Department
of Biochemistry, University of Benin until 1981 when he was called to public
service by the Lagos State Government. He was the Commissioner of Education
until March 1984, and later Commissioner for Social Development, Youth, Sports
and Culture until July 1985, and then Commissioner for Local Government, Rural
Development and Chieftaincy Affairs, August 1985-September 1986. Unlike many
Nigerian scholar-politicians, what is unique about Prof. Rokosu, as a scholar, was
that after public service in 1986 he quietly returned to his beloved teaching
profession at the Lagos State University, where he also held various posts—including
that of Deputy Vice Chancellor of the institution (December 1987-December
1988).
As for Prof.
Rokosu’s wife, Mrs Modupe Rokosu (herself a medical doctor), closer to me than
the husband, I will not only describe her as a sister in Christ, but also as a
mother. It was quite impossible, therefore, for me not to attend the funeral—hence
I was there.
There were
two officiating priests at the funeral, Fathers Marcellinius Teko (the Cathedral
Administrator) and Father Robert Oji, the Assistant Priest. Father Robert Oji
delivered the funeral homily, and indeed I must confess that it was quite unlike
Novus Ordo funeral homilies! He started with the following words: “Dear brothers and sisters, we have gathered
here today to pray for our brother, Peter Ajibade Abayomi Rokosu...” There
was no eulogy, at all, rather he simply reminded his listeners about the
reality of death—which according to him can come at any time, even when we
don’t expect it—and the need to properly prepare for it at all times, as true
followers of Christ.
However, the
Cathedral Administrator, Father Marcellinius Teko, simply messed up my feeling
when, after the mass, he took the microphone and acknowledged the “presence of”
one Anglican “Archbishop”! I couldn’t just believe my eyes. When his mouth
pronounced “Archbishop...” I thought it was the cathedral Archbishop, Adewale
Martins that just arrived only to hear a very strange name pronounced, and then
to behold—wonder of all wonders!—one ugly character (putting on a red cap!) really
standing up and acknowledging cheers from “Catholics” who were clapping!
It is really
amazing how the majority of today’s Catholics have lost the Faith almost
completely! Of course I’m aware that some may argue, “well, acknowledging the presence of the Archbishop doesn’t mean
recognising the validity of his order”. My answer to this is a resounding “NO”—ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRESENCE OF THE “ARCHBISHOP”
INDEED GIVES THE IMPRESSION OF RECOGNISING THE VALIDITY OF HIS ORDER. What
kind of impression do you think the priest created in the minds of those poor
Catholics who were clapping for the “Archbishop”? Moreover, on that day there
were many dignitaries and traditional rulers in the Church. No one of them was
acknowledged except the “Archbishop”—which speaks volumes about Father Teko’s
special regard for him. Now anyone who still retains his Catholic conscience
knows that those other dignitaries in the Church on that day were more
important than that unfortunate “Archbishop”—because by virtue of his being an Anglican—alone—the
“Archbishop” is simply not only a lay man, but also a heretic. “So
it comes to pass that”, writes
Pope Leo XIII, “as the Sacrament of Order
and the true sacerdotium of
Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, hence
the sacerdotium is in
no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same
rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly
and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first
duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and
sacrifice” (Apostolicae Curae, 29). Who then, can acknowledge the “special presence” of a heretical
“Archbishop” inside the Catholic Church
if not another heretic himself?
And then, of
course the cathedral itself (where Father Teko is), which usually invites
Anglican choirs to sing for Catholics during festivals like Christmas in the
name of promoting ecumenism, is simply capable doing the unthinkable—so I
wasn’t really completely surprised. The legacy of Cardinal Okogie, Teko’s old
boss, will remain in the cathedral for years to come and will continue to
“inspire” many more priests. (As I write, I can still recall Cardinal Okogie always calling Mohammed “Prophet
Mohammed” and even using the life of the “great prophet” to teach Catholics
moral lessons during his diabolical homilies in the same cathedral some years
back).
I’ve just
been told, also, that the same priest, Father Teko, is already preparing the
minds of poor Catholics to accept Bergoglio’s innovations—particularly the
washing of women’s feet during Holy Thursdays. Well I don’t wish to say much on
all these issues for now, but if Protestant-minded
“Catholic” priests like Father Teko have completely lost their Catholic
consciences, they must leave poor
Catholic faithful alone and must not
contaminate them with their errors. If they do that, let them be aware that—whether
we’re now worshipping with one group of traditionalist priests or the other—we
simply cannot ignore their errors; rather we are very much around and really stand
to deal decisively with all promoters of error through the proper channels.
So then, the main question: “Does the Catholic Church recognise Anglican
Ordinations as Valid?” Without wasting much time, let me quickly answer the
question with a resounding “NO!” Before I proceed, however, it is necessary to
give a brief history of the Anglican “church” so that readers who don’t know
may quickly know. It all happened this way: Before the sixteenth century all
the English Churches were Catholic. But King Henry VIII, who was king of
England from 1509 to 1547, wanted to end his marriage to his wife, by name
Catherine, of Aragon, because she had not borne him a male child, and the doctors
had told him that she would not be able to have any more child. Having fallen
in love with Anne Boleyn, a scheming girl whose sister had already been Henry’s
girl friend, the king ordered Cardinal Wolsey, a chancellor, to ask the pope
for a divorce. Wolsey tried hard but failed. The Pope examined Henry’s marriage
very carefully and found it was a true marriage, and so refused to consent to a
divorce, telling the king that it was against the law of God to break the
marriage. But Henry became angry, went his own way and sent his first wife
away. As the Pope could not succumb, the king, who was then a Catholic Knight
and had even fought against Lutheranism, made parliament declare him head of
all the Catholic Churches in England. Almost all the bishops in England
accepted this, so Henry had his way. Others who refused—Fisher and Thomas More
among them—were ruthlessly martyred.
However,
Henry himself did not want to start a new church—he acknowledged the Church of
England as Catholic but insisted that the English Church was under his
authority and not under the authority of the pope. But after his reign, his
son, Edward VI, who succeeded him to the throne, broke away entirely from the
Pope. The mass, the sacraments—including Holy Orders—and many other Catholic
practices were changed, and some abolished. New prayers and a new form of
worship were introduced into the new “churches” (formerly Catholic Churches).
The new “church” later came to be
known as the Church of England or the Anglican Church, as it is popularly known
today. Thus it was the Ordinations
conferred according to the Edwardine rite, i.e. those conferred under Edward VI,
who changed the sacraments, including that of Holy Order—and not the previous
ones which were Catholic, that is, not the previous Ordinations which were
conferred when the Church of England was still Catholic—that were declared
invalid, null and void by the Catholic Church. Now it is interesting to note
that today’s Anglican “Church”, which even confers “priestly ordination” on
women, has, in errors and heresies, gone deeper than the Anglican “Church” of
the sixteenth century, yet, some apostate Novus Ordo priests and bishops have
no problem with that, at all!
Having
said that, we now proceed: Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 document, Apostolicae Curae,
makes it very clear that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.” In his piece ‘Why the invalidity of Anglican Orders
is important for the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter’, Paul Sullins of the Catholic University of America observes
that many Novus Ordo priests have followed with interest the establishment of a
new canonical form, the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, to receive
Anglican lay groups and their clergy into the Catholic Church. Repeated surveys
have found that seven in ten Novus Ordo priests agree that the Church “should
continue to welcome Episcopalian priests who want to become active Roman
Catholic priests, whether they are married or single”. For many of these
priests—and for many potential Anglican “convert” “priests”—the Church’s
difficult decision that the Anglican Orders are invalid has cast a pall over
the Ordinariate, says Sullins. Inclined
to “generosity”, aware that prominent “theologians” have disagreed with the
decision and that Anglican and Catholic worship are “very similar”, and
recognising their “experience” and “maturity as pastors”, these apostate men question
why these Anglican infidels must be ordained in forma absoluta, “as if their former Anglican ordination never
occurred”, observes Sullins.
Sullins
tries to show in his piece that the decision on Anglican Orders rests on much
stronger theological grounds than are generally acknowledged, reflecting not
only Catholic thinking but also the central tradition of Anglican thought; and
that the view that Anglican orders could be valid is especially inconsistent
with Catholic conversion; and lastly that conditional ordination would place
the Catholic Church, and the Ordinariate, in an untenable position regarding
ordination decisions, and could seriously impede the incorporation of
Ordinariate clergy into the American Catholic Church.
The
conclusion by Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 document Apostolicae
Curae that the Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” has,
in the words of one observer of Anglican-Catholic relations, “cast a long and
very dark shadow across our relationships and conversation for one hundred
years.” Many on the Anglican side and some on the “Catholic side”, have
rejected Leo’s stark repudiation of Anglican orders, Sullins continues. Those
on both sides, whether they concur with the decision or not, agree that it
presents an insuperable obstacle to closer ecumenical relations between “the
two churches”. Leaders of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Consultation
(ARCIC) since the 1960s have termed it the most deeply felt issue affecting
their dialogue; in 1979 they boldly asserted that ecumenical progress “calls
for a reappraisal of the verdict on Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae”
The issue,
says Sullins, becomes very personal for Anglican “priests” considering
conversion, who often take pause or even offence at what is perceived to imply
a negative evaluation of their Anglican ministry or orders, as if they were
worthless or perhaps only a pretence. Giles Pinnock poignantly expresses this
“deeply troubling” effect of the verdict of Apostolicae
Curae: “Subjectively and emotionally,
the denial of ‘my priesthood’ is for some Anglicans a serious obstacle
presented to them by absolute ordination.” Anglican ecumenist Callan Slipper,
in noting that under Anglicanorum
coetibus “the orders of former Anglican clergy are not recognised, hence
any reordination in an Ordinariate is absolute and not conditional”, observes
that “[n]o amount of appreciation of the work of the Holy Spirit in a man’s
previous ministry can deny this fact, and a denial of the Anglican belief in
the validity of its Church’s orders is implicit....” This requirement, in his
view, is “indicative of a diminished Anglican identity” in the Ordinariate.
Older
Anglicans, Sullins goes on, can recall when it seemed that the Catholic Church
may have been moving toward a more accepting position on Anglican orders. The
ecumenical impulse within Catholicism following the Second Vatican Council
(1963-1965), which reduced the Catholic prescription of Protestantism
generally; furthered by the achievements of ARCIC during the 1970s to reach
consensus on other theological points; and the positive re-appraisal of
Anglican orders by some major “Catholic theologians”, all made it possible to
conceive that a reconsideration may be on the horizon. In fact in 1994 Graham
Leonard, a senior Anglican “bishop”, received a conditional ordination to the
Catholic priesthood!—which confirmed such thinking.
Father Teko,
no doubt, has all these “positive developments” as his backbones. But then, he
must note that even his same conciliar church also repudiates Anglican orders.
In 2000, for instance, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF),
under Cardinal Ratzinger, issued the declaration Dominus Iesus, a strongly-stated rejection of the sufficiency of
Protestantism which, to Anglican observers, “seem[ed] to reassert Apostolicae Curae and to ignore the
ecumenical gains of the past thirty years”. The “Archbishop” of Canterbury then
responded to Ratzinger: “Of course, the
Church of England, and the world-wide Anglican Communion, does not for one
moment accept that its orders of ministry and Eucharist are deficient in any
way”. In fact, though little noticed at the time, the nullity of Anglican
orders had been explicitly reaffirmed two years earlier when, in an official
doctrinal commentary released with the 1998 Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, which addressed the
degree of credence which Catholics should give to emergent teachings of the
ordinary magisterium, the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger listed as an example of
truths “which are to be held definitively ...the declaration of Pope Leo XIII
in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae
on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.” (Cf. “Doctrinal Commentary on the
Concluding Formula of the Professio
Fidei,” L’ Osservatore Romano English Edition, July 15, 1998).
Well,
whether this acknowledgement is made or not (if they like, let them deny it as
they deny other innumerable papal teachings and magisterial documents that do
not support their errors), we know what Pope Leo XIII meant when he wrote, in
the encyclical:
“We decree
that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any
time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect
whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be
always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and
otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and pre-eminence, declaring null and
void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted,
whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever
authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Catholicism
and Anglicanism—whether some perverts now see them as “similar” or not—are
simply NOT the same, and will never be. In fact, just as we Catholics utterly
reject their putative “ordinations”, so real Anglican infidels equally reject
Catholic orders—even the recognition that Anglican orders are not Catholic ones
is not just a Roman Catholic pronouncement but also an Anglican doctrine! Long
before Leo XIII declared Anglican order deficient from a Catholic perspective
in 1893, Queen Elizabeth I of unfortunate memory had in 1570 declared the
Catholic view of orders deficient from an Anglican perspective. The central
points of Anglican belief are stated in the Articles of Religion, which were
articulated and revised over a period of several decades during the tumultuous
16th century. The Articles—though questioned by Catholic-minded
Anglicans since the so-called Oxford Movement of the 1830s—were clearly
intended to be an authoritative statement of the Anglican belief.
Lastly, I
think it is instructive, also, for those who hold that all who received the
sacrament of Holy Order according to the New Rite of Ordination under Vatican
II are invalidly ordained as well as those who counter them, to use this
opportunity to study carefully the following words of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope
Leo XIII: “The Church does not judge about
the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal;
but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning
it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form
to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have
intended to do (intendisse) what
the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly
conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the
Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the
manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and
of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ,
belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary
intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and
destructive of the Sacrament.” (Apostolicae Curae, 33). Again, the pope writes: “...in the Church it has ever been a
constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrament
of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have
silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom.” (Ibid. 16). But,
the pope makes it clear that when the normal tradition is omitted the ordination could indeed be repeated but
only conditionally: “It is important to bear in mind that this
judgment (on the Anglicans) was in no
wise determined by the omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a
case, according to the established custom, the direction would have been to
repeat the ordination conditionally...” (Ibid. 21). There are, indeed, many other lessons to learn
from the encyclical, both by the Sedevacantists and anti-Sedevacantists, as
well as those who promote Anglicanism.
Below, Dear Father Teko, is
Pope Leo’s encyclical Apostolicae Curae—I sincerely hope, with all due
respect, that it serves as a warning to you and to all perverts who promote
false doctrines in today’s Catholic Church.
In Christ,
J E I.
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
Apostolicae
Curae
Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII
In
Perpetual Remembrance
1. We have
dedicated to the welfare of the noble English nation no small portion of the
Apostolic care and charity by which, helped by His grace, we endeavour to fulfil
the office and follow in the footsteps of "the Great Pastor of the
sheep," Our Lord Jesus Christ. The letter which last year we sent to the
English seeking the Kingdom of Christ in the unity of the faith is a special
witness of our good will towards England. In it we recalled the memory of the
ancient union of the people with Mother Church, and we strove to hasten the day
of a happy reconciliation by stirring up men's hearts to offer diligent prayer
to God. And, again, more recently, when it seemed good to Us to treat more
fully the unity of the Church in a General Letter, England had not the last
place in our mind, in the hope that our teaching might both strengthen
Catholics and bring the saving light to those divided from us. It is pleasing
to acknowledge the generous way in which our zeal and plainness of speech,
inspired by no mere human motives, have met the approval of the English people,
and this testifies not less to their courtesy than to the solicitude of many
for their eternal salvation.
2. With
the same mind and intention, we have now determined to turn our consideration
to a matter of no less importance, which is closely connected with the same
subject and with our desires.
3. For an
opinion already prevalent, confirmed more than once by the action and constant
practice of the Church, maintained that when in England, shortly after it was
rent from the centre of Christian Unity, a new rite for conferring Holy Orders
was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as
instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession. For some
time, however, and in these last years especially, a controversy has sprung up
as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine Ordinal
possessed the nature and effect of a Sacrament, those in favour of the absolute
validity, or of a doubtful validity, being not only certain Anglican writers,
but some few Catholics, chiefly non-English. The consideration of the
excellency of the Christian priesthood moved Anglican writers in this matter,
desirous as they were that their own people should not lack the twofold power
over the Body of Christ. Catholic writers were impelled by a wish to smooth the
way for the return of Anglicans to holy unity. Both, indeed, thought that in
view of studies brought up to the level of recent research, and of new
documents rescued from oblivion, it was not inopportune to re-examine the
question by our authority.
4. And we,
not disregarding such desires and opinions, above all, obeying the dictates of
apostolic charity, have considered that nothing should be left untried that
might in any way tend to preserve souls from injury or procure their advantage.
It has, therefore, pleased Us to graciously permit the cause to be re-examined,
so that, through the extreme care taken in the new examination, all doubt, or
even shadow of doubt, should be removed for the future.
5. To this
end we commissioned a certain number of men noted for their learning and
ability, whose opinions in this matter were known to be divergent, to state the
grounds of their judgment in writing. We then, having summoned them to our
person, directed them to interchange writings, and further to investigate and
discuss all that was necessary for a full knowledge of the matter. We were
careful, also, that they should be able to re-examine all documents bearing on
this question which were known to exist in the Vatican archives, to search for
new ones, and even to have at their disposal all acts relating to this subject
which are preserved by the Holy Office or, as it is called, the Supreme Council
and to consider whatever had up to this time been adduced by learned men on
both sides. We ordered them, when prepared in this way, to meet together in
special sessions. These to the number of twelve were held under the presidency
of one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, appointed by ourselves, and
all were invited to free discussion. Finally, we directed that the acts of
these meetings, together with all other documents, should be submitted to our
venerable brethren, the Cardinals of the same Council, so that when all had
studied the whole subject, and discussed it in our presence, each might give
his own opinion.
6. This
order for discussing the matter having been determined upon, it was necessary,
with a view to forming a true estimate of the real state of the question, to
enter upon it, after careful inquiry as to how the matter stood in relation to
the prescription and settled custom of the Apostolic See, the origin and force
of which custom it was undoubtedly of great importance to determine.
7. For
this reason, in the first place, the principal documents in which our
predecessors, at the request of Queen Mary, exercised their special care for
the reconciliation of the English Church were considered. Thus Julius III sent
Cardinal Reginald Pole, an Englishman, and illustrious in many ways, to be his
Legate a latere for
the purpose, "as his angel of peace and love," and gave him
extraordinary and unusual mandates or faculties and directions for his
guidance. These Paul IV confirmed and explained.
8. And
here, to interpret rightly the force of these documents, it is necessary to lay
it down as a fundamental principle that they were certainly not intended to
deal with an abstract state of things, but with a specific and concrete issue.
For since the faculties given by these pontiffs to the Apostolic Legate had
reference to England only, and to the state of religion therein, and since the
rules of action were laid down by them at the request of the said Legate, they
could not have been mere directions for determining the necessary conditions
for the validity of ordinations in general. They must pertain directly to
providing for Holy Orders in the said kingdom, as the recognized condition of
the circumstances and times demanded. This, besides being clear from the nature
and form of the said documents, is also obvious from the fact that it would
have been altogether irrelevant thus to instruct the Legate one whose learning
had been conspicuous in the Council of Trent as to the conditions necessary for
the bestowal of the Sacrament of Order.
9. To all
rightly estimating these matters it will not be difficult to understand why, in
the Letters of Julius III, issued to the Apostolic Legate on 8 March 1554,
there is a distinct mention, first of those who, "rightly and lawfully
promoted," might be maintained in their orders: and then of others who,
"not promoted to Holy Orders" might "be promoted if they were
found to be worthy and fitting subjects". For it is clearly and definitely
noted, as indeed was the case, that there were two classes of men; the first of
those who had really received Holy Orders, either before the secession of Henry
VIII, or, if after it, and by ministers infected by error and schism, still
according to the accustomed Catholic rite; the second, those who were initiated
according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could not be
"promoted", since they had received an ordination which was null.
10. And
that the mind of the Pope was this, and nothing else, is clearly confirmed by
the letter of the said Legate (29 January 1555), sub-delegating his faculties
to the Bishop of Norwich. Moreover, what the letters of Julius III themselves
say about freely using the pontifical faculties, even on behalf of those who
had received their consecration "irregularly (minus rite) and not
according to the accustomed form of the Church," is to be especially
noted. By this expression those only could be meant who had been consecrated
according to the Edwardine rite, since besides it and the Catholic form there
was then no other in England.
11. This
becomes even still clearer when we consider the Legation which, on the advice
of Cardinal Pole, the Sovereign Princes, Philip and Mary, sent to the Pope in
Rome in the month of February, 1555. The Royal Ambassadors three men "most
illustrious and endowed with every virtue," of whom one was Thomas
Thirlby, Bishop of Ely were charged to inform the Pope more fully as to the
religious condition of the country, and especially to beg that he would ratify
and confirm what the Legate had been at pains to effect, and had succeeded in
effecting, towards the reconciliation of the Kingdom with the Church. For this
purpose, all the necessary written evidence and the pertinent parts of the new
Ordinal were submitted to the Pope. The Legation having been splendidly
received, and their evidence having been "diligently discussed," by
several of the Cardinals, "after mature deliberation," Paul IV issued
his Bull Praeclara Charissimi on June 20 of that same year. In
this, whilst giving full force and approbation to what Pole had done, it is
ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows:
‘Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by anyone
but a Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders
again.’
12. But
who those Bishops not "validly and lawfully ordained" were had been
made sufficiently clear by the foregoing documents and the faculties used in
the said matter by the Legate; those, namely, who have been promoted to the
Episcopate, as others to other Orders, "not according to the accustomed
form of the Church," or, as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of
Norwich, "the form and intention of the Church," not having been
observed. These were certainly those promoted according to the new form of rite,
to the examination of which the Cardinals specially deputed had given their
careful attention. Neither should the passage much to the point in the same
Pontifical Letter be overlooked, where, together with others needing
dispensation are enumerated those "who had obtained both Orders as well as
benefices nulliter et
de facto." For to
obtain orders nulliter means the same as by act null and void,
that is, invalid, as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance
require. This is specially clear when the word is used in the same way about
Orders as about "ecclesiastical benefices". These, by the undoubted
teaching of the sacred canons, were clearly null if given with any vitiating
defect.
13
Moreover, when some doubted as to who, according to the mind of the pontiff,
could be called and considered bishops "validly and lawfully
ordained," the said Pope shortly after, on October 30, issued a further
letter in the form of a brief and said:
"we, desiring to wholly remove such doubt, and to opportunely
provide for the peace of conscience of those who during the aforementioned
schism were promoted to Holy Orders, by clearly stating the meaning and
intention which we had in our said letters, declare that it is only those
bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of
the Church that cannot be said to be duly and rightly ordained..."
14. Unless
this declaration had applied to the actual case in England, that is to say, to
the Edwardine Ordinal, the Pope would certainly have done nothing by this last
letter for the removal of doubt and the restoration of peace of conscience.
Further, it was in this sense that the Legate understood the documents and
commands of the Apostolic See, and duly and conscientiously obeyed them; and
the same was done by Queen Mary and the rest who helped to restore Catholicism
to its former state.
15. The
authority of Julius III, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows
the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for
more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the
Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully
proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the
Catholic rite even in Rome.
16. In the
observance of this practice we have a proof directly affecting the matter in
hand. For if by any chance doubt should remain as to the true sense in which
these pontifical documents are to be understood, the principle holds good that
"Custom is the best interpreter of law." Since in the Church it has
ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the
Sacrament of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See
should have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom. But not only
did the Apostolic See tolerate this practice, but approved and sanctioned it as
often as any particular case arose which called for its judgment in the matter.
17. We
adduce two cases of this kind out of many which have from time to time been
submitted to the Supreme Council of the Holy Office. The first was (in 1684) of
a certain French Calvinist, and the other (in 1704) of John Clement Gordon,
both of whom had received their orders according to the Edwardine ritual.
18. In the
first case, after a searching investigation, the Consultors, not a few in
number, gave in writing their answers or as they call it, their vota and the rest unanimously
agreed with their conclusion, "for the invalidity of the Ordination,"
and only on account of reasons of opportuneness did the Cardinals deem it well
to answer with a dilata (viz.,
not to formulate the conclusion at the moment).
19. The
same documents were called into use and considered again in the examination of
the second case, and additional written statements of opinion were also
obtained from Consultors, and the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne and of
Douai were likewise asked for their opinion. No safeguard which wisdom and
prudence could suggest to ensure the thorough sifting of the question was
neglected.
20. And
here it is important to observe that, although Gordon himself, whose case it
was, and some of the Consultors, had adduced amongst the reasons which went to
prove the invalidity, the Ordination of Parker, according to their own ideas
about it, in the delivery of the decision this reason was altogether set aside,
as documents of incontestable authenticity prove. Nor, in pronouncing the
decision, was weight given to any other reason than the "defect of form
and intention"; and in order that the judgment concerning this form might
be more certain and complete, precaution was taken that a copy of the Anglican
Ordinal should be submitted for examination, and that with it should be
collated the ordination forms gathered together from the various Eastern and
Western rites. Then Clement XI himself, with the unanimous vote of the
Cardinals concerned, on Thursday 17 April 1704, decreed:
"John Clement Gordon shall be ordained from the beginning and
unconditionally to all the orders, even Holy Orders, and chiefly of Priesthood,
and in case he has not been confirmed, he shall first receive the Sacrament of
Confirmation."
21. It is
important to bear in mind that this judgment was in no wise determined by the
omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a case, according to the
established custom, the direction would have been to repeat the ordination
conditionally, and still more important is it to note that the judgment of the
pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it
refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that
case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these
ordinations, so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for
decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norm.
22. Hence
it must be clear to everyone that the controversy lately revived had already
been definitely settled by the Apostolic See, and that it is to the
insufficient knowledge of these documents that we must, perhaps, attribute the
fact that any Catholic writer should have considered it still an open question.
23. But,
as we stated at the beginning, there is nothing we so deeply and ardently
desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the greatest
consideration and charity. Wherefore, we ordered that the Anglican Ordinal,
which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most
carefully examined.
24. In the
examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments,
distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which
is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form".
All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of
invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect
the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in
the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter and form",
it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter"
is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the
"form". And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of
Order, the "matter" of which, in so far as we have to consider it in
this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies
nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confirmation.
25. But
the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute
the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy
Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order
of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or
its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of
offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess.
XXIII, de Sacr. Ord.,
Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the
sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de
Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This
form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and
work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans
themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even
if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was
introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the
Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no
power of ordaining.
27. In
vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican
Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other
reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican
life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately
removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the
Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or
sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
28. The
same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive
the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of
a bishop", etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall
presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they
bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the
preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped
of the words which denote the summum
sacerdotium .
29. It is
not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the
priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they
say per saltum ,
on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate
undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament
of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest
degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our
liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii
summa . So it comes to pass
that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the
Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise
conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for
the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly
conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the
episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.
30. For
the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we
have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to
consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized.
It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the
history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors
of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they
associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had
in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and
worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under
a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical
Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the
whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of
consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium),
and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just
stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the
Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and
struck out.
31. In
this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly
manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient
to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would
become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the
time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of
priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the
contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times
that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox
sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this
reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend
themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in
the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have
seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea
of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the
Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the
soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and
work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain
as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
32. Many
of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the
force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the
Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a
value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted
the contention of those who think that the prayer, "Almighty God, giver of
all good Things", which is found at the beginning of the ritual action,
might suffice as a legitimate "form" of Orders, even in the
hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved
by the Church.
33. With
this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of
"intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church
does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by
its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound
to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite
matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very
reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what
the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly
conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the
Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the
manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and
of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ,
belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the
necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse
to and destructive of the Sacrament.
34. All
these matters have been long and carefully considered by ourselves and by our
venerable brethren, the Judges of the Supreme Council, of whom it has pleased
Us to call a special meeting upon the 16th day of July last, the solemnity of
Our Lady of Mount Carmel. They with one accord agreed that the question laid
before them had been already adjudicated upon with full knowledge of the
Apostolic See, and that this renewed discussion and examination of the issues
had only served to bring out more clearly the wisdom and accuracy with which
that decision had been made. Nevertheless, we deemed it well to postpone a
decision in order to afford time both to consider whether it would be fitting
or expedient that we should make a fresh authoritative declaration upon the
matter, and to humbly pray for a fuller measure of divine guidance.
35. Then,
considering that this matter, although already decided, had been by certain
persons for whatever reason recalled into discussion, and that thence it might
follow that a pernicious error would be fostered in the minds of many who might
suppose that they possessed the Sacrament and effects of Orders, where these
are nowise to be found, it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce our
judgment.
36.
Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs,
our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing
them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we
pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican
rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
37. It
remains for Us to say that, even as we have entered upon the elucidation of
this grave question in the name and in the love of the Great Shepherd, in the
same we appeal to those who desire and seek with a sincere heart the possession
of a hierarchy and of Holy Orders.
38.
Perhaps until now aiming at the greater perfection of Christian virtue, and
searching more devoutly the divine Scriptures, and redoubling the fervour of
their prayers, they have, nevertheless, hesitated in doubt and anxiety to
follow the voice of Christ, which so long has interiorly admonished them. Now
they see clearly whither He in His goodness invites them and wills them to
come. In returning to His one only fold, they will obtain the blessings which
they seek, and the consequent helps to salvation, of which He has made the
Church the dispenser, and, as it were, the constant guardian and promoter of
His redemption amongst the nations. Then, indeed, "They shall draw waters
in joy from the fountains of the Saviour", His wondrous Sacraments,
whereby His faithful souls have their sins truly remitted, and are restored to
the friendship of God, are nourished and strengthened by the heavenly Bread,
and abound with the most powerful aids for their eternal salvation. May the God
of peace, the God of all consolation, in His infinite tenderness, enrich and
fill with all these blessings those who truly yearn for them.
39. We
wish to direct our exhortation and our desires in a special way to those who
are ministers of religion in their respective communities. They are men who
from their very office take precedence in learning and authority, and who have
at heart the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Let them be the first in
joyfully submitting to the divine call and obey it, and furnish a glorious
example to others. Assuredly, with an exceeding great joy, their Mother, the
Church, will welcome them, and will cherish with all her love and care those
whom the strength of their generous souls has, amidst many trials and
difficulties, led back to her bosom. Nor could words express the recognition
which this devoted courage will win for them from the assemblies of the
brethren throughout the Catholic world, or what hope or confidence it will
merit for them before Christ as their Judge, or what reward it will obtain from
Him in the heavenly kingdom! And we, ourselves, in every lawful way, shall
continue to promote their reconciliation with the Church in which individuals
and masses, as we ardently desire, may find so much for their imitation. In the
meantime, by the tender mercy of the Lord our God, we ask and beseech all to
strive faithfully to follow in the path of divine grace and truth.
40. We
decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable
at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other
defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and
shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both
juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and pre-eminence, declaring
null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise
attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by
whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
41. We
will that there shall be given to copies of these letters, even printed,
provided that they be signed by a notary and sealed by a person constituted in
ecclesiastical dignity, the same credence that would be given to the expression
of our will by the showing of these presents.
Given at
Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord, one thousand
eight hundred and ninety-six, on the Ides of September, in the nineteenth year
of our pontificate.
-- Leo PP.
XIII
