Anglican Orders and things
#1
Was talking with a traditional leaning Anglican about their orders. So I know Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid on the basis of defect of form and intention. I think I understand the defect of intention bit since their understanding of the Eucharist is skewed, but what about the defect of form since as I understand, the exact for of Holy Orders wasn't actually specified until the pontificate of Pius XII? 

Also, the Church recognizes Orthodox orders, but apparently the Orthodox recognize Anglican orders. This seems confusing since if an Anglican priest were to become Orthodox and was not re-ordained and then became a bishop, wouldn't that call into question all of Orthodox apostolic succession?

Finally, could someone explain the whole Henry VIII saga? My Anglican friend was making the argument that Henry actually should have gotten the annulment since there was precedent in Leviticus regarding marrying his brother's wife, but 1) I thought that in a scenario when an older brother dies, the younger brother is supposed to marry the widow (e.g. the story of Ruth, the scenario in the Gospel with the Sadducee's where Jesus says there's no marrying or giving in marriage in Heaven). Also it seems like this is alluded to in A Man for All Seasons so I know there's more to the story than just that. He was trying to play the whole thing off as the Pope's political deference to the Holy Roman Emperor, and even if this was the case Henry obviously had no right to do what he did but it just seems like a skewed version of events that I don't know the refutation for.  

Thanks!
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomine Tuo da gloriam.
Reply
#2
(12-17-2019, 09:20 AM)Joe T Wrote: the Orthodox recognize Anglican orders.

I think someone is confused! I started as an Anglican, and became an Orthodox before converting to Catholicism. I've known several Anglican 'priests' who converted to Orthodoxy, and all of them were unconditionally ordained to the Priesthood in the Orthodox Church.

I don't know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that recognises the validity of Anglican orders.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Joe T
Reply
#3
(12-17-2019, 04:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 09:20 AM)Joe T Wrote: the Orthodox recognize Anglican orders.

I think someone is confused! I started as an Anglican, and became an Orthodox before converting to Catholicism. I've known several Anglican 'priests' who converted to Orthodoxy, and all of them were unconditionally ordained to the Priesthood in the Orthodox Church.

I don't know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that recognises the validity of Anglican orders.
You're right Jovan. To my knowledge there is no jurisdiction that I can think of that actually accepts Anglican Orders as valid in any sense.

From what I've read there were a few hierarchs within the Orthodox world that were pretty friendly towards anglicans at one time, and that might have been somewhat more open to the possibility,  but even they never accepted Anglicans as real priests.  The ones I'm thinking of were in the mid 19th century too, certainly when Anglicanism had at least some semblance of a more serious Western Tradition.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 1 user Likes formerbuddhist's post:
  • Joe T
Reply
#4
(12-17-2019, 04:29 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I don't know of any Orthodox jurisdiction that recognises the validity of Anglican orders.
 
That's what I'd always thought. I wish I could figure out what he was referring to. I think the Old Catholic Church actually does recognize Anglican orders but that's a whole other story, although maybe that's where he was coming from.
Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomine Tuo da gloriam.
Reply
#5
(12-17-2019, 09:20 AM)Joe T Wrote: Finally, could someone explain the whole Henry VIII saga? My Anglican friend was making the argument that Henry actually should have gotten the annulment since there was precedent in Leviticus regarding marrying his brother's wife...

I believe your Anglican friend is referring to these scriptural texts:
  • "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." Leviticus 18:16
  • "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."
However, and someone can jump in here and correct me if I am wrong, but the covenants under Leviticus were conditional, and fulfilled, and therefore no longer active. See, e.g., Malachias 2:8-12; Hebrews 7:5-13.  It is therefore incorrect to say that it was improper for Henry VII to marry is (dead) brother's wife, at least when citing Leviticus, because those laws were no longer in effect.  Moreover, Henry VIII petitioned, and received, permission to marry Catherine of Arragon from the then Pope.  Surely, the Pope was aware of the circumstances, and raised no objection to the marriage. So, to later state that the marriage was illegal simply makes no logical sense.
Reply
#6
(12-19-2019, 03:23 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 09:20 AM)Joe T Wrote: Finally, could someone explain the whole Henry VIII saga? My Anglican friend was making the argument that Henry actually should have gotten the annulment since there was precedent in Leviticus regarding marrying his brother's wife...

I believe your Anglican friend is referring to these scriptural texts:
  • "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." Leviticus 18:16
  • "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."
However, and someone can jump in here and correct me if I am wrong, but the covenants under Leviticus were conditional, and fulfilled, and therefore no longer active. See, e.g., Malachias 2:8-12; Hebrews 7:5-13.  It is therefore incorrect to say that it was improper for Henry VII to marry is (dead) brother's wife, at least when citing Leviticus, because those laws were no longer in effect.  Moreover, Henry VIII petitioned, and received, permission to marry Catherine of Arragon from the then Pope.  Surely, the Pope was aware of the circumstances, and raised no objection to the marriage.  So, to later state that the marriage was illegal simply makes no logical sense.

Whilst you are correct that the Levitical laws no longer bound, the Church had adopted the Roman Law on Consanguinity and Affinity, which not only prohibited such a marriage but went much further as far as the prohibited degrees of kinship and affinity, and during the mediæval period, affinity (relationship by marriage - consanguinity is by blood) was considered to be established not only by marriage, but by the relationship of baptism. For instance, a a man could not marry his father's Goddaughter.

However, it was fairly common practice for the Pope to dispense from all but the closest degrees of kindred, including a deceased brother's wife. But, since Catherine was the Emperor's aunt it was difficult for the Pope to do so.

Henry, on the other hand, had convinced himself (or pretended to) that the Levitical strictures still bound, thus the Pope could not dispense from Divine Law, and this led to his going into schism

Here is 'A Table of Kindred and Affinity, Wherein Whosoever Are Related Are Forbidden by the Church of England to Marry Together', which was adopted in 1549 by the Church of England, taken directly from existing Catholic Law at the time:

[Image: KindredAffinity1.gif]

What is so ironic is that despite Henry's violation of it, it remained the civil law in England until the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act 1921 (11 & 12 Geo.5 c.24) was passed.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Joe T, newenglandsun
Reply
#7
(12-19-2019, 05:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Whilst you are correct that the Levitical laws no longer bound, the Church had adopted the Roman Law on Consanguinity and Affinity....

But the compliant that the OP refers to was not because the marriage was against the Roman Law of Consanguinity and Affinity, but because of the 'precedent in Leviticus.' Clearly, Henry VIII had no grounds to make such an objection as such law was no longer in effect, and as such there was nothing for the Pope to dispense from Divine Law.
Reply
#8
(12-19-2019, 05:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Henry, on the other hand, had convinced himself (or pretended to) that the Levitical strictures still bound, thus the Pope could not dispense from Divine Law, and this led to his going into schism
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#9
(12-19-2019, 03:23 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(12-17-2019, 09:20 AM)Joe T Wrote: Finally, could someone explain the whole Henry VIII saga? My Anglican friend was making the argument that Henry actually should have gotten the annulment since there was precedent in Leviticus regarding marrying his brother's wife...

I believe your Anglican friend is referring to these scriptural texts:
  • "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness." Leviticus 18:16
  • "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."
However, and someone can jump in here and correct me if I am wrong, but the covenants under Leviticus were conditional, and fulfilled, and therefore no longer active. See, e.g., Malachias 2:8-12; Hebrews 7:5-13.  It is therefore incorrect to say that it was improper for Henry VII to marry is (dead) brother's wife, at least when citing Leviticus, because those laws were no longer in effect.  Moreover, Henry VIII petitioned, and received, permission to marry Catherine of Arragon from the then Pope.  Surely, the Pope was aware of the circumstances, and raised no objection to the marriage.  So, to later state that the marriage was illegal simply makes no logical sense.
Levitical law obligated the man to marry his brother's widow, no?
Reply
#10
(12-19-2019, 05:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: For instance, a a man could not marry his father's Goddaughter.
You shouldn't do that. She is practically your sister.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)