The USCCB has issued a new Pontifical, or in Anglican parlance an Ordinal, which came into effect on the 1st Sunday of Advent. https://store.usccb.org/collections...ination-of-a-bishop-of-priests-and-of-deacons It replaces editions from 2003 and 2011. I found it interesting that the RCC tinkers with their Ordinal that often.
I can't find any reports of what the new one has. They go back and forth on whether to put the rites for various forms of blessing in the Pontifical or the Sacramentary. They also revise the book any time there have been changes to the Missal. It seems to me most of this revision is busy work and an excuse to get $60 out of the likely ordination chapels of the dioceses for the new book. I just find it amusing that one of the arguments against Anglican orders is based on a supposed deficiency in the BCP Ordinal and yet they are regularly tweaking their own rites.
What is even funnier is that what they claim we did with our ordinal, that made it invalid, they did after Vatican II to their ordinal. Guess they invalidated their own orders.
Truth! I was hunting for some comparison yesterday and found one comparing the Latin rite to the 1st post-Vatican II rite. It was from an uber trad Catholic and he questioned the validity of any ordinations in English speaking countries since 1978.
I understand that in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) that a pontifical is more than an ordinal. It contains those sacraments and other services that can only be celebrated by or are normally celebrated by a bishop. Therefore, it won't just contain the rites for ordaining bishops, priest and deacons. It will contain such things as consecrating and blessing churches, oratories, chapels, etc., confirmation, blessing of abbots and abbesses, blessings reserved to bishops, etc. Prior to Vatican II many RCC liturgical books were often contained in a single volume. Nowadays, they often publish different rites in separate volumes. For example, the Ritual, which contains services, other than Mass or the Divine Office, which priests can celebrate is now published in separate volumes, e.g., Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass (e.g. for Benediction), Baptism, Matrimony, Funeral rites, etc. The link you have provided is to one of the various volumes into which the pontifical is now divided. Indeed, it is an ordinal containing the rites for ordaining bishops, priest and deacons.
I have sometimes wondered about this. My understanding is that the Edwardine ordinal purposefully shook off language that explicitly referred to the ordinand as a priest with a sacrificial role, effectively denying the Mass as such. Whereas the post Vatican II rites do not deny the sacrificial role of the priest, but do soften the language in order to soothe Protestant ears. Is that sufficient to nullify Catholic orders, or does it put the kabosh on Pius XIII’s opinion on Anglican Orders? Beats me. But it does send my eyes rolling around in my head.
Ah yes another one of those fake RC “standards,” a fiction made up out of thin air by Roman Popes in the 1800s
Why would they care about soothing Protestant ears? What is odd is that the 1662 rite is fine now according to Rome, the Dutch Touch was added, in the 1700's and 1800's you have EO Bishops help in a few Anglican Consecrations as co consecrators and still Rome questions our orders. If that does not show politics on the issue I don't know what does.
Because ecumenism, I suppose. The new Mass was written with input from Protestants. I’m not expert in the matter, but it is the case as I understand it. I’m not sure how ok Rome is with 1662. Even the Anglican Ordinariate version of the Mass, though it resembles the 1662 in many respects, substitutes the Roman Canon for the one found in the BCP.
I’ll need to look it up but I vaguely remember that this was an objection raised by Rome in the 16th century. Pius XIII did not make it up, but rather restated the conclusion drawn at the time. mind you I am not endorsing that conclusion. I’m not so sure that orders are so brittle and easily nullified.
From what I know there were a number of Anglican priests whose orders were simply accepted as transfers in Rome, prior to the late 1800s
The most recent Pius was Pius XII (pontificate: 1939-1958). The papal bull that declared Anglican Holy Orders, "absolutely null and utterly void", Apostolicae curae (1896), was issued by Pope Leo XIII (pontificate: 1878-1903).