cms@gatech.edu (08/30/90)
Next: "Anglican Orders: From the Responsio of the Archbishops of
England to the Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII....February 1897."
Begin quote.
IX. [The question of the proper form and matter of ordination.] ...
Baptism is unique among sacraments, in that there is complete
certainty about both form and matter. And this accords with the
nature of the case. Baptism is the gateway into the church for all
men, and it can be administered, in pressing necessity, by any
Christian; therefore the conditions of valid Baptism ought to be known
to all. As regards the Eucharist, it offers sufficient certainty
about its matter (leaving aside, as of minor importance, questions
about unleavened bread, salt, water, and the like): but debate still
continues about its full and essential form. There is, too, no entire
certainty about the matter of Confirmation; and for our part we are
far from thinking that Christians who hold different opinions on this
subject should be condemned by one another. Again, the form of
Confirmation is uncertain and quite general, namely prayer or
blessing, more or less appropriate, such as has been customarily
employed in various churches. There is similar uncertainty about
other sacraments.
X. ... The Pope writes that the laying on of hands is the matter
which "is equally employed for Confirmation." ... But the Roman Church
has for many centuries substituted, by a corrupt custom, the
stretching out of hands over a crowd of children or simply "towards
those who are to be confirmed", instead of conferring the laying on of
hands upon each person. The Orientals (with Eugenius IV) teach that
the matter is chrism, and they do not use the laying on of hands in
this rite. If therefore the doctrine about a fixed matter and form
were to be admitted, then the Romans have administered Confirmation
less than perfectly for many past centuries, while the Greeks have no
Confirmaton at all. Many of the Romans admit, in practice, that a
corruption has been introduced by their predecessors, since in many
places, we have discovered, the imposition of hands has been attached
to the anointing, and in some Pontificals a rubric has been added to
this effect. We may then ask whether Orientals who are converted to
the Romans need a second Confirmation? Or do the Romans admit that in
changing the matter the Easterns have exercised the same right as the
Romans in corrupting it? Whatever may be the answer of the Pope, it
is sufficiently clear that we cannot everywhere insist too rigidly on
the doctrine of prescribed form and matter; for on that count all the
Sacraments of the Church, except Baptism, could be brought into doubt.
XI. [The Pope infers from the decisions of Trent that the principal
function of priesthood is the offering of the EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.]
... We answer that we provide with the greatest reverence for the
consecration of the Holy Eucharist, and entrust it only to duly
ordained priests, and to no other ministers of the Church. We also
truly teach the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and we do not believe it
to be "a bare commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross" -- a belief
which seems to be imputed to us in a quotation from that council.
However, we think it enough, in the liturgy which we use in
celebrating the Holy Eucharist -- while lifting up our hearts to the
Lord, and then straightway consecrating the gifts already offered that
they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ --
to signify in this way the sacrifice which is made at that point. We
observe, that is, a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ,
who is himself our advocate with the Father, and the propitiation for
our sins, according to his instruction, until his second coming. For,
in the first place, we offer a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving",
then we set forth and reproduce before the Father the Sacrifice of the
cross, and through this sacrifice we "obtain remission of sins and all
other benefits" of the Lord's passion for "all the whole Church";
finally we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all
things, a sacrifice which we have already signified by the oblations
of his creatures. This whole action, in whcih the people has of
necessity to take its part with the priest, we are accustomed to call
the Eucharistic Sacrifice...[the language of the Roman canon is
similar; "sacrifice of praise", an offering made by God's servants "to
become for us the body and blood", an offering of his "own gifts and
bounties" (after consecreation), and then the sacrifice is compared
with that of Abel, Abraham and Melchisedech, to be "carreid by angels
to the altar on high".] ... It is thus plain that the LAW OF
BELIEVING, as set forth by the Council of Trent, has gone some way
beyond the LAW OF PRAYING. It is indeed a matter full of mystery, a
matter well suited to draw the minds of men to high and deep
meditation, by strong feelings of love and devotion. But since it
ought to be treated with extreme reverence, and to be regarded as a
bond of Christian charity, not as an occasion for subtle disputations,
precise definitions of the manner of the sacrifice, and the principle
by which the sacrifice of the eternal Priest is united with the
sacrifice of the Church (which in some way certainly are one); these
are in ourjudgement to be avoided rather than encouraged.
XII. What then is the reason for impugning our form and intention in
making presbyters and bishops?
The Pope writes (omitting things of minor importance), "the order of
priesthood, and its grace and power, which is especially the power of
consecrating and OFFERING THE TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of the Lord in that
sacrifice which is not A BARE COMMEMORATION OF THE SACRIFICE
accomplished on the cross, must be signified in the ordination of a
presbyter. In regard to the form for consecration of a bishop, it is
not entirely clear what he desires; but it appears that in his opinion
"high-priesthood" ought in some way to be ascribed to him. However,
both these assertions are strange, since in the oldest Roman
formulary, in use, it seems, at the beginning of the third century,
inasmuch as precisely the same form is emploiyed for a bishop and for
a presbyter, except for the names, nothing whatever is said about
"high-priesthood" or "priesthood"; nor anything about the sacrifice of
the Body and Blood of Christ. There is mention only of "prayers and
oblations which he will offer (to God) day and night," and the power
of remitting sins is touched on.
[ XIII-XVIII. The elements in ordination now claimed by the Romans
to be essential are shown to be medieval additions.]
XIX. ... The Romans, beginning with an almost Gospel simplicity, have
embellished the austerity of their rites with Gallican adornments, and
in the course of time have added ceremonies brought in from the Old
Testament in order to give increasing emphasis to the distinction
between people and priests. We are far from asserting that these
ceremonies are "contemptible and dangers", or that they are without
value at their proper place and time. We only declare that they are
not essential. Thus in the sixteenth century when our fathers drew up
a liturgy for the use both of people and clergy, they returned almost
to the Roman beginnings. For the holy Fathers, both theirs and ours
(whom they call innovators) followed the same most trusted leaders,
the Lord and the Apostles. But now the one and only model exhibited
for our imitation is the example of the modern Church of Rome, which
is entirely preoccupied with the offering of sacrifice ... [in the
Roman Pontifical, after the laying-on (or "extension") of hands, the
bishop says a prayer, called in early days the "Consecration".] If
the ancient Roman ordinations are valid, the ordination of presbyters
is complete in that Church, even at this day, as soon as this prayer
has been said. For if a form has once sufficed for any sacrament of
the Church, and is retained complete and unaltered, it must be
supposed to be retained with the same intention, and it cannot be
asserted, without a kind of sacrilege, that it has lost its efficacy
because other things have been silently added after it ... [To these
allegations of the inadequacy of our rite] we reply that we take our
stand on the sacred Scriptures and in the making of priests we rightly
stress and proclaim the dispensing and administering of the word and
sacraments, the power of remitting and retaining sins, and the other
functions of the pastoral duty, and in these we sum up and include all
the other functions.
XX. If the Pope, by a new decree, shall pronounce that our Fathers
were invalidly ordained two hundred and fifty years ago, there is
nothing to prevent the inevitable decision that by the same law all
who have been ordained in a like fashion have received orders which
are null. As if our Fathers who in 1550 and 1552 used forms which, as
he says, were null, were utterly unable to reform them in 1662, his
own Fathers also are subject to the same law. And if Hippolytus and
Gelasius and Gregory in their rites have some of them said too little
about the priesthood and the high-priesthood, and nothing about the
power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, then
the Church of Rome itself has a null priesthood, and the reformers of
her Sacramentaries, whatever name they rejoiced in, could effect
nothing from the healing of the rites. "For as the hierarch" (in the
Pope's own words) "had become extinct owing to the nullity of the
form, there was no power of ordaining". And if the Ordinal "was
wholly powerless to effect ordination", it was impossible that it
should acquire the power in the course of time, since it has remained
exactly as it was. And their efforts have been vain who thereafter
from (the sixth and eleventh centuries) tried to introduce some
element of sacrifice and priesthood (and concerning the remitting and
retaining of sins) by making some additions to the Ordinal. Thus in
overthrowing our orders he at the same time overthrows all his own and
pronounces sentence on his own Church.
End quote.
I'm currently in the process of writing an article describing the
history of the American Book of Common Prayer. Incorporated within it
is a history of the liturgy in general. The article concentrates on
changes in the Prayer Books, the specific disputes involved and how
they were resolved, right up to the controversy over the 1979 Book of
Common Prayer.
Also, if no one minds, I think it's about time to put out another
notice on trm and src announcing the existence of Episcopal Digest and
encouraging new membership. No one protested in the past, so I assume
this is acceptable to all members, unless I hear otherwise.
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia