Anglican orders not 'invalid' says Cardinal, opening way for revision of Catholic position [Tablet]

Anglican orders not 'invalid' says Cardinal, opening way for revision of current Catholic position

09 May 2017 | by Christopher Lamb

Leo XIII’s remarks that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” have been a major stumbling block to Catholic-Anglican unity



One of the Vatican’s top legal minds has opened the way for a revision of the Catholic position on Anglican orders by stressing they should not be written off as “invalid.”

In a recently published book, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, calls into question Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 papal bull that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void.”

“When someone is ordained in the Anglican Church and becomes a parish priest in a community, we cannot say that nothing has happened, that everything is ‘invalid’,” the cardinal says in volume of papers and discussions that took place in Rome as part of the “Malines Conversations,” an ecumenical forum.

“This about the life of a person and what he has given …these things are so very relevant!”

For decades Leo XIII’s remarks have proved to be one of the major stumbling blocks in Catholic-Anglican unity efforts, as it seemed to offer very little room for interpretation or revision.

But the cardinal, whose department is charged with interpreting and revising Church laws, argued the Church today has a “a very rigid understanding of validity and invalidity” which could be revised on the Anglican ordination question.

“The question of validity [regarding the non-recognition of Anglican orders, while the Pope would give pectoral crosses, rings or chalices to Anglican clergy], however, is not a matter of law but of doctrine,” he explains in a question and answer format. “We have had, and we still have a very rigid understanding of validity and invalidity: this is valid, and that is not valid. One should be able to say: ‘this is valid in a certain context, and that is valid another context’.”

Cardinal Coccopalmerio also recalled Pope Paul VI’s meeting with then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, in 1966. It was a famous meeting as the Pope gave the archbishop his episcopal ring and also, according to the cardinal, a chalice.

“What does it mean when Pope Paul VI gave a chalice to the Archbishop of Canterbury? If it was to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, it was meant to be done validly, no?” he explains. “This is stronger than the pectoral cross, because a chalice is used not just for drinking but for celebrating the Eucharist. With these gestures the Catholic Church already intuits, recognises a reality.”


Click here for the rest of the article:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/706...ay-for-revision-of-current-catholic-position-

 

There have been plenty of Anglican apologetics and points of view to show Leo XIII the error of his ways. Glad to see some in Rome are finally listening.

 

After this one came out, Dwight Longenecker (an Ordinariate priest) had to get his two cents in. I don't have a link just now, but his remarks were to the effect that he didn't know what was valid in his Anglican ministry other than his proclamation of the gospel, and furthermore, one could not make a blanket statement about Anglican orders because Anglicans cannot even agree amongst themselves about what holy orders mean. I have run across this same line of thought, and also outright repudiation of one's Anglican ministry, often among the guys who fled to the Ordinariate. I find it a little unbelievable most of the time.

He did raise a valid point regarding Anglicans not agreeing amongst themselves about the meaning of holy orders.

 

Another point on the OP is an examination of lines of succession. In the Anglican Continuum, virtually all major jurisdictions have the Chambers succession and a tie to the Union of Utrecht or Scranton (the Old Catholic churches). The Old Catholics and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are all viewed as valid sacramental ministers (and the SSPX) but Anglicans are mysteriously not accorded the same status in all circles. Perhaps it is because the Protestant voice was so loud for a long time.

As an aside, I think full communion with the Copts (and possibly the Church of the East) will be possible in my lifetime and long before any real advances with Rome. The Copts and Assyrians need an ally and we Anglicans are much friendlier than the East or the Vatican.

 

I'll refrain from any comments on Longenecker, although his ACNA comment is pretty much spot on. You're right about advancements with Copts and Assyrians of whom you hear almost nothing about here in America.

 

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/12/ej-bicknell-on-anglican-orders-first.html

It's from December 2008 but still one of the best defenses of the validity of Anglican orders.

 

The Anglican Church seems to have more in common with Syrian/Oriental Orthodoxy than Eastern Orthodoxy. I,for one,would be glad to see communion between us and the OO Church.