Anglican orders

[Aodhan]

Zn Anglican acquaintance claims that he is catholic as their bishops have apostolic succession. How might I best refute this?

[St.Justin]

They don't have True Apostolic succession as Ordinary Jurisdiction is required for that. Some of them could have valid orders due to infiltration from the Old Catholic Line.

[Davis Blank - EG]

This will help you:  http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/01/20/the-validity-of-anglican-holy-orders/

tl;dr they lost apostolic succession in the mid-1500s when they changed their rites of ordination because they changed their theology on what a priest is (whereas the Orthodox have not).  The intent changed and so the sacrament was lost.

I do not suspect this would change any hearts and minds.  I'd rather ask about sola scriptura or sola fide if theology is to be discussed.

[Prayerful]

They don't have True Apostolic succession as Ordinary Jurisdiction is required for that. Some of them could have valid orders due to infiltration from the Old Catholic Line.

Old Catholic Orders are now problematic, as some of them like the Ultrecht Union, pseudo-ordain women. The Dutch touch is no longer a sure thing.

[St.Justin]

The first change to the Anglican rites were indeed invalid (both form and intention).
They made changes 100 years later that fixed the problem (both form and intention).
So the problem with Anglican orders stems from the fact that the initial change invalided all Ordinations for 100years thereby leaving no one in the Anglican Church with valid orders to administer Ordinations with the fixed valid rites.
So there were no valid rites administered in the Anglican Church until they brought in some Old Catholic Bishops to correct the problem. So as far as I can ascertain there are a mixture of valid and invalid Priest and Bishops running around in the Anglican church with none of them having "Apostolic Succession" because they have no Ordinary Jurisdiction.

[Michael Wilson]

St. Justin,
 we have discussed this before; Pope Leo XIII is quite definite that even with the latter additions in the Anglican Ordinals, they were still invalid:

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 Ordel 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 when 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 .

Pope Leo goes on to state:

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.

Joined to a defect in the "Form" of the Sacrament, is added the defect of "intention" in the rite itself, i.e. It is not a Catholic rite:

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.

Which led Pope Leo to finally render his decision:

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.

How much clearer can the Pope be: "absolutely null and utterly void".

[St.Justin]

So do you hold that the NO rites are also invalid for the same reason?

[Michael Wilson]

So do you hold that the NO rites are also invalid for the same reason?

Two separate issues.
1. For Leo XIII and therefore for Catholics, the Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void."
2. The new rite of orders is at best doubtful and probably invalid as Fr. Cekada's study ably demonstrates; but it remains a personal opinion.

[Michael Wilson]

Here is a two part article written in 1962 covering the whole controversy of Anglican Orders from a Catholic perspective by Fr. Paul Rust O.M.I.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6237
and part II: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6237
The article is well written and the priest presents both sides of the question very fairly and completely as possible in such a limited space, his final summation is as follows:

2. The Catholic Answer

a) Apostolicae Curae clearly set forth what doctrine of the Eucharist was rejected by Article XXXI and by the Edwardine reformers; why the reformers did reject this Catholic doctrine; what doctrine the reformers substituted for it.

b) Pope Leo had free access to the literary monuments of the English reformers, and these works left no doubt in his mind why they had altered the rite of ordination. The Pope knew, too, that the English reformers were "schoolmen" well versed in the theology of Catholicism as well as in the theology of the continental Protestants in whose footsteps they walked. These literary remains urge a convincing argument in favor of Apostolicae Curae, for they attest the undeniable fact that the new formularies of faith were designed to contradict traditional doctrines of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

c) With the passing of the years it is becoming increasingly difficult for Catholics to understand how Anglicans can long maintain their line of argumentation, confronted as they are with this massive testimony of their own Founding Fathers.27

d) In the long dialogue between Catholic and Anglican, Apostolicae Curae — as eirenic in purpose as it was temperate in argument — wrote Finis to a weary chapter of Church history.

e) As far as Catholics are concerned, "the case is closed" — "causa finite."

[St.Justin]

So do you hold that the NO rites are also invalid for the same reason?

Two separate issues.
1. For Leo XIII and therefore for Catholics, the Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void."
2. The new rite of orders is at best doubtful and probably invalid as Fr. Cekada's study ably demonstrates; but it remains a personal opinion.

But the words and problems are the same? Not to mention Pius XII does not level the same requirements as to form as Leo XIII does. So which Pope is correct?

[Michael Wilson]

St. Justin,
I'm not sure what you are speaking of; Pius XII states that for valid "form" two things must be mentioned: 1. The orders one is receiving 2. The conferring of the Holy Ghost. Pius XII:

4. Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.

And Pope Leo points out that the Anglican Ordinals do not specify what grace is being given; here is the Anglican "forms":

    Episcopate

    Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.

    Priesthood

    Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained: and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of His holy sacraments. In the name of the Father, etc.

No mention of the Priesthood or the Episcopate in either form as specified by Pius XII.
The Fr. Rust quotes from an article in an Episcopal newspaper the following:

The Pope has spoken with a promptness and with a determination which many did not expect. We are fully in accord with him, and we can subscribe to almost all his arguments. It is precisely what we have always held, namely, that by the Reformation the heads of the Church of England deliberately and effectively separated from the Church of Rome, repudiated her teaching on the priesthood and the episcopacy, and therefore in ordination they never had any intention of conferring the priesthood, since they considered sacerdotalism an injury to the Priesthood of Christ, without foundation in the Scriptures, and repugnant to all the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel.3

[St.Justin]

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.

[Michael Wilson]

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.

Ok, but the difference being that Cramner and his successors let it be known that they rejected the Catholic theology of the Sacraments, Cramner was in fact a Swinglian.
here is Fr. Rust' article:

2. Second Act of Uniformity (1552)

Parliament suppressed the 1549-1550 liturgical books and imposed Cranmer's revised liturgy, with the explanation that the Anglican liturgy had now been made "fully perfect." Prayer Book and Ordinal actually did express the perfection, the full maturity, of Cranmer's beliefs relative to the sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders.

Professor Pollard measures the distance covered by Cranmer in reaching his point of no return: "It is clear that whatever foreign inspiration there may have been, that inspiration was Zwinglian rather than Calvinist."20

Zwingli as is notorious, denied the Sacraments any real effect.
The Anglicans themselves deny that the addition of the words "For the power of the Bishop & Priesthood etc." mark a return to Catholic theology of the Sacraments: Fr. Rust cites:

"No such thing," explain our Anglicans. "What actually happened was this. When the 1662 liturgists revised the Edwardine 'forms,' they did so to make it clear that there is an essential difference between the priesthood and the episcopate." In 1662 Presbyterian theologians had cited the Ordinal "forms" to establish their contention that Anglicanism and Presbyterianism were united in the belief that "presbyterate" and "episcopate" are one and the same thing.

[St.Justin]

All of that was before "Mary I, also known as Mary Tudor, was the Queen of England and Ireland from July 1553 until her death. She is best known for her aggressive attempt to reverse the English Reformation, which had begun during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. The executions that marked her pursuit of the restoration of Roman Catholicism in England and Ireland led to her denunciation as "Bloody Mary" by her Protestant opponents." and before the wording was changed and has no bearing on what came after. I have been reading everything I kind find on this subject and all I can find is that Leo's arguments are based on the fact that he thinks they didn't really mean the changes. This seems to me to be the only valid reason for his condemnation "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."

[Michael Wilson]

Pope Leo also bases his decision on the historic practice of the Church; even after the 1662 modifications; to consider Anglican Orders invalid and to "absolutely ordain", not conditionally re-ordain those Anglican clergymen who applied for ordination as Catholic priest.
Canon Escourt one of the the foremost experts on this issue, was quoted by Michael Davies in his book: "The Order of Melchisedech" as stating that Anglican Ordinal was so in-apt for the conferring of orders, that even a Catholic bishop could not validly consecrate a bishop or ordain a priest using the ordinal.