Show menu
ARCIC-42 ~ Anglican Orders
Document data


Protocol: ARCIC-42
Dated: 30 Aug. 1972
Type: Study papers
Collection: ARCIC-I
Meeting: Gazzada, Italy, 30 August to 7 September 1972
Lambeth Library: ARCIC/1/42


Permanent URL

iarccum.org/doc/?d=110
This permanent URL may be used in print publications to link to this document page.


Protocol numbers

Many of the documents in this collection have been assigned a protocol number, eg. ARCIC-44. These simply indicate that the document was distributed to the commission members. They do not signify provenance.


Copyright

Copyright in minutes, statements, and other core papers is owned by the relevant Commission and requests for extensive quotation or use should be directed to the co-Chairs. However, copyright in papers by named authors remains with the author.

Jerome Smith, OP ~ 30 Aug. 1972

Text in 20 pages with footnotes.

The discussion about the Anglican Orders in connection with the reformed church (the Reformation Churches), 1, the exception of Fr Hughes, 1, Fr Hughes and the condemnation of Anglican orders in 1896, 1; purpose of the essay: in the first and longer part of this paper, Smith will discuss Fr Hughes’s opinions on Anglican orders, this will be done through an examination of Francis Clark’s Judgments in the matter, the second part will present a brief summary of the other works which have been done on the subject of reformation ministries,1, the importance and meaning of matter and form in the sacramental context where they are used analogically, 1, the integrity of sacrament and the integrity of rite, 1, the analogy in the way in which Vatican II speaks of the separated churches of the East on the one hand, and of the separated Churches of the East on the one hand, and of the separated Churches and ecclesial communities of the west on the other, examples in the text 1-2, on this basis one can raise the question whether the Anglican church is assimilated to the reformed Churches and ecclesial communities of the west rather than to the Churches of the East. This question is precisely raised in Fr. Hughes’s book, the method of theological enquiry concerning the view of Eastern Churches by the Roman Catholic church, 2, Hughes’s book and the view of the Anglican orders, 2, different judgment about his book, Hughes and the traditional questions concerning the form of the Ordinal and the intentions of Anglican ordainers, 2, any judgment on his work should proceed first of all in the light of the traditional principles,2, Hughes and the Anglican Orders in the Bull Apostolicae Curae and the Gordon case, 3, Pole’s documents, the celebrated case of the ‘Nag’s Head Fable’ in a number of versions, and one of them contained in the Gordon petition of 1704,3, the history of the Anglican Orders at the time of Cardinal Pole and his attitude towards Edwardian orders and the consecration of Archbishop Parker 4. It is not easy to determine what did happen in the matter of Anglican orders in Mary’s reign,4, Hughes accepts the possibility of G. Dix’s suggestion that there were re-ordinations prompted by conscientious scruples on the part of Ordinands, 4, Philippe Hughes and his book ‘The Reformation in England’: he quotes extensively from Pole 4, the more basic question is to determine whether Julius III, Paul IV and Cardinal Pole, if they condemned Edwardian order were right in doing so, 5, and whether Apostolicae Curae was correct in condemning the Anglican orders, 5, the relationship between the sacrament of Eucharist and the ordination, 5, Hughes and the Eucharistic doctrine of Gabriel Biel, considered heretic, and Card. Cajetan whose theology was ininfluent,6, extended exhibition of Fr Hughes’s book on the two theologies of Biel and Card. Cajetan 7, Fr Hughes has three chapters directly upon Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology at the time of Reformation, 7, Father Clark’s book on the defect of intention,8, Clark lists 10 points that the Bull has been supposed to say and did not say, 8 the most important of these in that it did not say the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, 8, discussion on defect of form, 8, A. Aubry and a quite extraordinary version of the forms of baptism, e.g. ‘In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of Montanus,8, the question of the Methodist baptisms in Oceania and the inconsistency in the Roman Catholic treatment of sacramental rites performed outside the Roman Catholic Church, 8, the Anglican Ordinal does not point to a particular set of word as constituting the form in the narrower sense, 9, the form of priestly ordination in the Ordinal; the formula accompanying the laying on of hands runs ‘Receive the holy Ghost, 9. Fr Clark and the relationship between the forms of the Ordinal and those of the pontifical 10, Fr Hughes’ s position 10, the importance of the formula ‘Take the Holy Ghost’ for many scholastic theologian. That formula was considered to be the essential form for conferring orders 10, Fr Hughes and Fr Clark’s positions, 10, Thomas Aquinas and the discussion of the defect of form, 10, his examination of the change in the meaning of the words themselves, 10, the form of the Ordinal can only with difficulty be faulted in terms of addition or subtraction 10, the notion of the ‘new’ or ‘other rite’, 11 criteria in order to accept or refuse those new rites, 11, Anglican writers (1897 onwards) have commonly appealed to the preface to the ordinal to the public formularies and definite pronouncements of the Anglican Church generally (the question of intention), 11, the ordainers of Matthew Parker, 11, all Anglican ordainers intended to continue the orders which had existed in Christ’s church since the apostolic time, 11, the real force of Fr Clark’s argument about defect of intention lies in his ‘principle of positive exclusion’ 11, Fr Hughes and his quite crucial contribution to the whole debate, 12, difference between the sacrament of marriage which is also a contract and marriage, 12 the authorities quoted by Fr Clark from De Lugo in the 17th century to E.F. Regatillo in 1949, discussion on the position of Fr Hughes and Fr Clark, 12 Smith and Hughes’s arguments about the catholic position against the validity of Anglican Orders is too much spread, 13, reason for this extension, 13, finally it is time to report on a fundamentally different theological approach to the question of the validity of Reformation ministry, 13, H. Kung and the concept of a sacramento in voto which can be extended from baptism to orders, 13, F. J. Van Beeck and the idea of an extension of ‘votum sacramenti’ and its development, 13, the application of the notion of the church supplying the defect in the celebration of the sacrament to the Reformation churches,13, an analogy in the Orthodox practice of the ‘economy’ 13, a projection towards the future when the principle of Ecclesia suppplet and of the economy, in Orthodox terminology will be recognized and applied to the eucharist and extended to the orders, 13, Tavard and the use of the principle of Ecclesia supplet in the context of an enlarged concept of apostolic succession 13, other authors who studied the problems concerning the orders are: H.J. McSorley, E.P. Echlin and the Eucharistic teaching, Heiko Oberman’s evaluation of Gabriel Biel, Kilian McDonnell, John Coventry, criticism towards Fr Coventry’s position: he would like to see orders recognized as orders in so far as a Church is recognized as Church,14, the recall of Augustine principles: he recognized the validity of Donatists order, 15, the new argument in all its version depends upon the renewal of theology taking place under the stimulus of Vatican II in the RC church, 15.

This document is available in these versions:
Related news stories:

This record is a stub. Please help build this archive. How can you help?

  • Provide a full-text transcription of this document.

  • Indicate underlining, bold, italics, or other style using html tags,
    e.g. <u>..</u>, <b>..</b>, <i>..</i>.
  • Use linefeeds to indicate paragraphs.
    Include accented characters where necessary.
  • Indicate marginalia in square brackets, e.g. [ .. ]

Send your contributions or corrections to editor [at] iarccum [dot] org