Cardinal Newman on Anglican orders—applied to Novus Ordo orders
Cardinal John Henry Newman analyses the problems with Anglican orders in ways relevant to Novus Ordo ordination rites reformed by Paul VI. We provide extensive commentary on his text.
As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. Click here for The WM Review Reading List. Image collage from Wiki Commons CC, here, here and here.
This present extract, written in the period prior to the clarity brought by Pope Leo XIII’s bull Apostolicae Curae, again takes a different approach to assessing the validity of Anglican orders.
As with the previous text, Newman's method is applicable to our current situation following Vatican II, and in light of the reformed rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination.
Newman's method contains points that radically undermine the idea that these reformed rites are certainly valid.
However, this applicability can appear to cut both ways, and could well be used by defenders of Paul VI’s rite.
This applicability wholly turns on whether Paul VI was a legitimate Roman Pontiff, and whether his reform can be said to have come from the Catholic Church – or rather from the nascent Conciliar (now ‘Conciliar/Synodal’) Church, whose existence now is unquestionably distinct from the true Church of Christ.
(By ‘Conciliar-Synodal Church’, we mean the body of men, made up of both Catholics and non-Catholics, who are in good standing with Francis.)
In the text that follows, we have interspersed several comments to explain their applicability to our own day and the Novus Ordo reformed rites of Paul VI.
The principles expressed in and drawn from Newman’s text demonstrate that to preserve sacramental integrity, safeguard the common good, and secure peace of conscience, it is essential that all traditionalist groups systematically implement the conditional ordination/consecration of clerics whose orders depend on the validity of the Novus Ordo rites.
As to the Anglican Orders, I certainly do think them doubtful and untrustworthy; and that, independent of any question arising out of Parker's consecration, into which I will not enter.
WMR Notes: For a succinct account of ‘Archbishop’ Matthew Parker’s significance, see the footnote.1
Granting, for argument's sake, that that consecration was in all respects what its defenders say it was, still I feel a large difficulty in accepting the Anglican Succession and Commission of Ministry, arising out of the historical aspect of the Anglican Church and of its prelates, an aspect which suggests a grave suspicion of the validity of their acts from first to last.
I had occasion to make some remarks on this subject several years ago; but I left them unfinished, as feeling that I was distressing, without convincing, men whom I love and respect, by impugning an article of their belief, which to them is sacred, in proportion as it is vital. Now, however, when time has passed, and I am opposing not them but my former self, I may be allowed, pace charissimorum virorum, to explain myself, and leave my explanation on record, as regards some points to which exception was then taken.
And, in so doing, I do but profess to be setting down a view of the subject which is very clear to my own mind, and which, as I think, ought to be clear to them: but of course I am not laying down the law on a point on which the Church has not directly and distinctly spoken, nor implying that I am not open to arguments on the other side, if such are forthcoming, which I do not anticipate. […]
Orders conferred by heretical groups outside the Church
That argument, which I maintain now as then, is as follows:
That the consecrations of 1559 [of Parker et al.] were not only facts, they were acts; that those acts were not done and over once for all, but were only the first of a series of acts done in a long course of years; that these acts too, all of them, were done by men of certain positive opinions and intentions, and none of those opinions and views, from first to last, of a Catholic complexion, but on the contrary erroneous and heretical.
And I questioned whether men of those opinions could by means of a mere rite or formulary, however correct in itself, start and continue in a religious communion, such as the Anglican, a ministerial succession which could be depended on as inviolate.
WMR Notes: Here, Newmanis pointing out that arguing about whether or not the rite in question is valid and sufficient is in danger of missing the point – which is the wider context of the religious communion in which the rite is found.
In considering the post-Vatican II situation, this approach of stepping back and looking at the ‘gestalt’ or whole of the Conciliar-Synodal phenomenon may be more helpful than arguing about whether a novel form of words is ‘correct in itself’ or not.
At the very least, it is an additional way of considering the question – but one cannot help but wonder whether directing us to wrangle over such specific matters is an intentional means of ensuring we miss the wood for the trees.
I do not see what guarantee is producible for the faithful observance of a sacred rite, in form, matter, and intention, through so long a period in the hands of such administrators.
And again, the existing state of the Anglican body, so ignorant of fundamental truth, so overrun with diversified error, would be but a sorry outcome of Apostolical ordinances and graces. ‘By their fruits shall ye know them.’
Revelation involves in its very idea a teaching and a hearing of Divine Truth. What clear and steady light of truth is there in the Church of England? What candlestick, upright and firm, on which it has been set?
WMR Notes: The application to the Conciliar-Synodal Church – a body which is indeed ‘so ignorant of fundamental truth, so overrun with diversified error’ and quite devoid of the ‘clear and steady light of truth’ – should be obvious.
Thus, the conclusions also would appear to follow.
This seems to me what Leslie calls ‘a short and easy method;’ it is drawn out from one of the Notes of the Church. When we look at the Anglican communion, not in the books, in the imagination, or in the affections of its champions, but as it is in fact, its claims to speak in Christ's Name are refuted by its very condition. An Apostolical ministry necessarily involves an Apostolical teaching.
This practical argument was met at the time by two objections: first, that it was far-fetched, and next, that in a Catholic it was suicidal. I do not see that it is either, and I proceed to say why.
Can orders be considered valid when another sect’s orders, acknowledged as doubtful or null, are treated as legitimate?
As to its being far-fetched or unreasonable; if so, it is strange that it should have lately approved itself to a writer placed in very different circumstances, who has used it, not indeed against Anglican Orders, for he firmly upholds them, but against Swedish;—I mean, Dr. Littledale.
This learned and zealous man, in his late lecture at Oxford, decides that a certain uncatholic act, which he specifies, of the Swedish ecclesiastical Establishment, done at a particular time and place, has so bad a look, as to suffice, independent of all investigation into documents of past history, at once to unchurch it,—which is to go much further in the use of my argument than I should think it right to go myself.
‘Sweden,’ he says, ‘professes to have retained an Apostolical Succession; I am satisfied from historical evidence that she has nothing of the kind; but the late chaplain to the Swedish embassy in London has been good enough to supply me with an important disproof of his own Orders.
‘During a long illness, from which he was suffering some time ago, he entrusted the entire charge of his flock to a Danish pastor, until such time as his own successor was at length sent from Sweden.
‘His official position must have made the sanction of the authorities, both in Church and State, necessary for a delegation of his duties; so that the act cannot be classed with that of an obscure Yorkshire incumbent, the other day, who invited an Anabaptist minister to fill his pulpit. And thus we gather that the quasi-Episcopal Church of Sweden treats Presbyterian ministers on terms of perfect equality.’ (p. 8)
Here then a writer, whose bias is towards the Church of England, distinctly lays down the principle, that a lax ecclesiastical practice, ascertained by even one formal instance, apart from documentary evidence, or ritual observance, is sufficient in itself to constitute it an important disproof of the claim advanced by a nation to the possession of an Apostolical Succession in its clergy.
I speak here only of the principle involved in Dr. Littledale's argument, which is the same as my own principle; though, for myself, I do not say more than that Anglican ordinations are doubtful, whereas he considers the Swedish to be simply null.
Nor again should I venture to assert that one instance of irregularity, such as that which he adduces, is sufficient to carry on either me or (much less) him to our respective conclusions. To what indeed does his ‘disproof’ of Swedish orders come but to this: that the Swedish authorities think that Presbyterianism, as a religion, has in its doctrines and ordinances what is called ‘the root of the matter,’ and that the Episcopal form is nothing more than what I have called above (vol. i. p. 365) ‘the extra twopence’? Do the highest living authorities in the Anglican Church, Queen or Archbishop, think very differently from this? would they not, if they dared, do just what the late Swedish chaplain did, and think it a large wisdom and a true charity to do so?
WMR Notes: Newman notes that ‘that a lax ecclesiastical practice, ascertained by even one formal instance, apart from documentary evidence, or ritual observance, is sufficient in itself’ to constitute doubt about the claim of apostolic succession. The specific example given is the way in which Anglicans were treating a Swedish presbyterian sect (without episcopal orders) as if it were just as legitimate as the Church of England.
This has a number of interesting applications to our current situation.
First, we could consider the way in which Francis and Justin Welby (the Anglican ‘archbishop’ of Canterbury) once blessed a congregation as equals. Benedict XVI did the same thing with Rowan Williams in Westminster Abbey in his visit to the United Kingdom in 2010.
We could add many other such examples of the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy acting in this way with regard to Anglican orders, which are otherwise acknowledged as null.
To these examples, we could also add the scandalous permission of Anglican liturgies in Roman churches, as well as the various ecumenical prayer services.
All this is to say nothing of the even more chaotic relations on local levels.
This chaos has even received a cautious approval from Francis himself. In 2017, he came close to the example given by Newman, in that he referred (in a cautiously positive way) to the practice of Catholics and Anglicans attending each others liturgies when ‘necessary’":
‘In the north of Argentina there are the Anglican missions with the aborigines, and the Anglican Bishop and the Catholic Bishop there work together and teach. And when people can’t go on Sunday to the Catholic celebration they go to the Anglican, and the Anglicans go to the Catholic, because they don’t want to spend Sunday without a celebration; and they work together. And here [at the Vatican], the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith knows this. […]
‘In the north of Argentina, an aborigine says to you: “I’m Anglican.” But the bishop is not here, the Pastor is not here, the Reverend is not here . . . “I want to praise God on Sunday and so I go to the Catholic Cathedral,” and vice versa. They are riches of the young Churches. I don’t know, this is what comes to me to say to you.’
I conceive there is nothing evasive in refusing to decide the question of Orders by the mere letter of an Ordination Service, to the neglect of more elementary and broader questions; nothing far-fetched, in taking into account the opinions and practices of its successive administrators, unless Anglicans may act towards the Swedes [the Swedish Presbyterian church] as Catholics may not act towards Anglicans. Such is the common sense of the matter; and that it is the Catholic sense, too, a few words will show.
It will be made clear in three propositions:
First, the Anglican Bishops for three centuries have lived and died in heresy; (I am not questioning their good faith and invincible ignorance, which is an irrelevant point;) next, it is far from certain, it is at the utmost only probable, that Orders conferred by heretics are valid; lastly, in conferring the sacraments, the safer side, not merely the more probable, must ever be taken.
And, as to the proof of these three points:
As regards the first of them, I ask, how many Anglican Bishops have believed in transubstantiation, or in the necessity of sacramental penance? yet to deny these dogmas is to be a heretic.
WMR Notes: The application to the Conciliar-Synodal Church is clear. It is quite evident that many do not believe in the most basic of dogmas. Is it not also clear that the conclusion with regard to the validity or orders also follows? Note that this is not an embrace of a neo-Donatism (we are not denying per se the possibility of sacramental validity amongst heretics), but rather a cautious application of the principle that the safer course must be followed with regards to sacramental validity, especially for holy orders.
Many surveys have revealed this, although they are not necessary – short experience in the Conciliar-Synodal milieu is sufficient to demonstrate widespread ignorance and rejection of basic dogmas amongst both clergy and laity.
In passing, let’s note that the astonishing paucity of scheduled times for confession eloquently illustrates a lack of belief in the necessity for confession, whatever anyone might say to the contrary.
Secondly, as to Orders conferred by heretics, there is, I grant, a strong case for their validity, but then there is also a strong case against it; so that at most heretical ordination is not certainly, but only probably valid.2
Probable opinions in the administration of the sacraments
As to the third point, this, viz., that in conferring sacraments not merely the more probable but the safer side must be taken, and that they must be practically considered invalid, when they are not certainly valid, this is the ordinary doctrine of the Church. [St Alphonsus Liguori says:]
‘Opinio probabilis est illa, quæ gravi aliquo innititur fundamento, apto ad hominis prudentis assensum inclinandum. In Sacramentorum collatione non potest minister uti opinione probabili, aut probabiliori, de Sacramenti valore, sed tutiores sequendæ sunt, aut moraliter certæ.’3
[‘A probable opinion is one that relies on some serious foundation, capable of inclining the assent of a prudent person. In the administration of the Sacraments, the minister cannot use a probable opinion (or a ‘more probable’ opinion) about the validity of the Sacrament, but the safer or morally certain opinions must be followed.’]
Pope Benedict XIV supplies us with an illustration of this principle, even as regards a detail of the rite itself. In his time an answer was given from Rome, in the case of a candidate for the priesthood, who, in the course of his ordination, had received the imposition of hands, but accidentally neglected to receive from the Bishop the Paten and Chalice. It was to the effect that he was bound to be ordained over again sub conditione.4
What Anglican candidate for the priesthood has ever touched physically or even morally Paten or Chalice in his ordination, from Archbishop Parker to Archbishop Tait?
WMR Notes: Much of the following was written prior to the clarity brought by Leo XIII and Pius XII on the matter and form of the sacrament of holy orders: at this time, many believed that the tradition of the instruments was essential for validity, and thus any ordination which suffered some defect here was repeated for the sake of safety.
Pius XII did not settle whether this was necessary, but he did rule that it was not necessary for the future.
We will discuss this further below.
In truth, the Catholic rite, whether it differs from itself or not in different ages, still in every age, age after age, is itself, and nothing but itself. It is a concrete whole, one and indivisible, and acts per modum unius; and, having been established by the Church, and being in present use and possession, it cannot be cut up into bits, be docked and twisted, or split into essentials and non-essentials, genus and species, matter and form, at the heretical will of a Cranmer, or a Ridley, or turned into a fancy ordinal by a royal commission of divines, without a sacrilege perilous to its vitality.
Though the delivery of the sacred vessels was not primitive, it was part of the existing rite, three centuries ago, as it is now, and could not, and cannot be omitted, without prejudice to the ecclesiastical status of those who are ordained without it.
Whether indeed, as time goes on, the Pope, in the plenitude of his power, could, with the aid of his theologians, obtain that clearer light, which the Church has not at present, on the whole question of ordination, for which St. Leo IX. so earnestly prayed, and thereby determine what at present is enveloped in such doubtfulness, viz., the validity of heretical ordination, and, what is still more improbable than the abstract proposition, the validity of Anglican Orders in particular, is a subject on which I do not enter.
WMR Notes: As mentioned, this more specific determination precisely what was later achieved by Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae itself and, to a greater extent, Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis. Leo XIII set out the general requirements for the valid form, saying in passing that it must…
‘… definitely express the sacred order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power.’ (n. 25)
Pius XII then clarified this further by determining the precise prayers which were to be necessary and essential for validity. He also specified:
‘… the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.’ (n. 4)
Following Pius XII’s determination of the issue, this commentary on the ‘tradition of the instruments’ has been superseded – although the underlying principle of the Church wishing to always take the safest path with regards to the sacraments should be clear.
As the matter stands, all we see is a hierarchical body, whose opinions through three hundred years compromise their acts, who do not themselves believe that they have the gifts which their zealous adherents ascribe to them, who in their hearts deny those sacramental formulas which their country's law obliges them to use, who conscientiously shudder at assuming real episcopal or sacerdotal power, who resolve ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’ into a prayer, ‘Whose sins ye remit are remitted’ into a license to preach, and ‘This is My Body, this is My Blood’ into an allegory.
The Anglican rites of holy orders
And then, supposing if ever, these great difficulties were overcome, after all would follow the cardinal question, which Benedict XIV opens, as I have shown, about the sufficiency of their rite itself.
Anyhow, as things now stand, it is clear no Anglican Bishop or Priest can by Catholics be recognised to be such.
If indeed earnestness of mind and purity of purpose could ever be a substitute for the formal conditions of a sacrament, which Apostles have instituted and the Church maintains, certainly in that case one might imagine it to be so accepted in many an Anglican ordination.
I do believe that, in the case of many men, it is the one great day of their lives, which cannot come twice, the day on which, in their fresh youth, they freely dedicated themselves and all their powers to the service of their Redeemer – solemn and joyful at the time, and ever after fragrant in their memories – it is so; but devotion cannot reverse the past, nor can good faith stand in the stead of what is true; and it is because I feel this, and in no temper of party, that I refuse to entertain an imagination which is neither probable in fact, nor Catholic in spirit.
WMR Notes: Disputes about the validity of the Vatican II sacramental rites can easily become heated and personal, especially if such disputes are taken to imply that all sacraments received hitherto were certainly or possibly invalid; and that any graces which a person believes himself to have received were nothing but illusions.
Such ideas are especially difficult for those who might have genuinely grown in virtue and the love of God, with such growth apparently due to sincere use of the new rites or the ministrations of men ordained with these rites. Such ideas must surely be difficult for this latter class of men themselves, who might have seen the effects of grace on their parishioners, apparently as a result of their sacramental ministry and pastoral care.
It is not surprising that this seems totally unacceptable to most. This is why we must be prepared to acknowledge good will wherever we find it, and not make overstated claims in this area. For further discussion on this matter and the implications of conditional repetition of the sacraments, see below:
If we do not even receive the baptism of Anglicans, how can we receive their ordinations?
WMR Notes: It has become uncomfortably clear that, as a result of the disintegration of teaching, practice, and discipline following Vatican II, it is difficult to attain moral certainty of a valid baptism based on an entry in a Conciliar-Synodal baptismal register alone.
The gravity of this problem became clear in 2020, when two conciliar ‘priests’ discovered that their own baptisms had been administered invalidly, leading to them being baptised and ordained anew. What is more, such invalid baptisms are known to have taken places in several occasions over periods of years, leading to potentially thousands of men, women and children who are not validly baptised, despite an entry in a parish register.
The existence and degree of doubt will vary very widely based on the time and place of the baptism, but there seems to be reasonable grounds for considering, as a result of the factors enumerated above, that something may have occurred to rendered any given Novus Ordo baptism invalid.
In some cases moral certainty of validity can and will be attained by further investigation; in a small number of cases clear evidence will be found of practices that render baptism invalid or doubtfully valid. But in other cases, certainty either way will be impossible, which necessarily requires conditional baptism.
But, to paraphrase Newman:
‘If we do not even receive Novus Ordo baptisms with moral certainty, how can we receive their ordinations?’
Can we trust a chain of putative ordinations over centuries without God’s help?
But now, secondly, comes the question, whether the argument, used above against Anglican, may not be retorted on Catholic ordinations.
For it may be objected that, however Catholics may claim to themselves the tradition of doctrine and rite, they do not profess to be secure against bad ecclesiastics any more than Protestants; that there have been times of ignorance, violence, unscrupulousness, in the history of the Catholic Church; and that, if Anglican Orders are untrustworthy because of the chance mistakes in three hundred years, much more so are Catholic, which have run a whole eighteen hundred.
In short, that I have but used against the Anglican ministry the old notorious argument of Chillingworth and Macaulay, an argument, which is of a sceptical character in them, and, in a Catholic, suicidal also.
Now I do not well know what is meant by calling such an argument sceptical. It seems to me a very fair argument. Scepticism is the refusal to be satisfied with reasons which ought to satisfy. To be sceptical is to be unreasonable.
‘It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.’6
On the need to be satisfied by the right level of certainty, see the below:
But what is there unreasonable, what extravagant in idea, or inconsistent with experience, in recognising the chance of important mistakes, here or there, in a given succession of acts?
I do certainly think it most probable, that an intricate series of ordinations through three hundred years, and much more through eighteen hundred, will have flaws in it. Who does not think so? It will have them to a certainty, and is in itself untrustworthy.
The importance of locating the true Church for ascertaining apostolic succession
By ‘untrustworthy in itself,’ I mean, humanly speaking; for if indeed there be any special protection promised to it, beyond nature, to secure it against errors and accidents, that of course is another matter; and the simple question is, whether this or that particular Succession has such a promise, or in other words, whether this or that Succession is or is not apostolical.
It is usual for Anglicans to say, as we say, that they have ‘the Apostolical Succession;’ but that is begging the question; if a Succession be apostolical, then indeed it is protected from errors; but it has to be proved apostolical before such protection can be claimed for it; that is, we and they, both of us, must give reasons in our own case respectively for this our critical assumption of our being apostolical.
We, Catholics, do produce our reasons – that is, we produce what are commonly called ‘the Notes of the Church’ – by virtue of those reasons, we consider we belong to that Apostolical Church, in which were at the beginning stored the promises; and therefore our Succession has the apostolic promise of protection and is preserved from accidents, or is apostolic; on the other hand, Anglicans must give reasons on their part for maintaining that they too belong to the Apostolic Church, and that their Succession is Apostolic.
WMR Notes: For the importance of the notes (or marks) of the Church, and its application to our situation, see the below:
There is then nothing unfair in Macaulay's argument, viewed in itself; it is fair to both of us; nor is it suicidal in the hands of a Catholic to use it against Anglicans, if, at the same time, he gives reasons why it cannot by opponents be used against himself. Let us look, then, at the objection more closely.
Is an unbroken apostolic chain of ordinations probable?
Lord Macaulay's remarks on the ‘Apostolic Succession,’ as contained in one of his Reviews, written with the force and brilliancy for which he is so well known, are far too extended to admit of insertion here; but I will quote a few words of his argument from its beginning and ending. He begins by laying down, first, that, whether an Anglican clergyman…
‘be a priest by succession from the Apostles depends on the question, whether, during that long period, some thousands of events took place, any one of which may, without any gross impropriety, be supposed not to have taken place;’ and next ‘that there is not a tittle of evidence for any one of these events.’
Then after various vivid illustrations of his argument, he ends by a reference to Chillingworth's ‘very remarkable words,’ as he calls them.
‘That of ten thousand probables no one should be false, that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable, and even cousin-german to impossible.’
I cannot deny, certainly, that Catholics, as well as the high Anglican school, do believe in the Apostolic Succession of ministry, continued through eighteen hundred years; nor that they both believe it to be necessary to an Apostolical ministry; nor that they act upon their belief.
But, as I have said, though so far the two parties agree, still they differ materially in their respective positions, relatively towards that Succession, and differ in consequence in their exposure respectively to the force of the objection on which I have been dwelling.
The difference of position between the two may be expressed in the following antithesis:
Catholics believe their Orders are valid, because they are members of the true Church
Anglicans believe they belong to the true Church, because their Orders are valid.
And this is why Macaulay's objection tells against Anglicans, and does not tell against Catholics.
The implications of this starting point for High Anglicans
In other words, our Apostolical descent is to us a theological inference, and not primarily a doctrine of faith; theirs with them is a first principle in controversy, and a patent matter of fact, the credentials of their mission.
WMR Notes: While traditional groups do not make such arguments, it is nonetheless true that they are obliged to demonstrate the validity of their orders through increasingly complicated charts and lineages, such as the following:
'The Magna Carta of Apostolic Succession Amidst Sedevacantist Orders.' This chart identifies apostolic succession with sacramental validity, which is incorrect. It also contains Old Catholic and other schismatic lineages, which makes 'Amidst Sedevacantist Orders' somewhat misleading, although some of these lineages are shaded with different colours. All in all, while this is an interesting and useful map, we must say that it is not very edifying.
Magna Carta Of Apostolic Succession Amidst Sedevacantist Orders (20 May 2020)
One cannot help but notice the contrast between the chaos of most of this graph, and the relative calm of the blue section of Archbishop Lefebvre’s lineage.
As Newman’s text shows, this whole situation is abnormal. We need to acknowledge that this would seem to tell against us, and in favour of the validity of Novus Ordo orders. But, as mentioned earlier, this all turns on the question of whether or not the Conciliar-Synodal body is indeed the Roman Catholic Church, the true Church of Christ.
As we have seen on independent grounds that it cannot be so - namely, because it does things that the Church of Christ cannot do, and also because its nature is substantially different to that of the Catholic Church (which is not only apostolic, but also visibly one, holy and universal) – it follows that this argument cannot be marshalled in favour of a presumption of validity.
That they can claim to have God's ministers among them, depends directly and solely upon the validity of their Orders; and to prove their validity, they are bound to trace their Succession through a hundred intermediate steps till at length they reach the Apostles; till they do this their claim is in abeyance.
If it is improbable that the Succession has no flaws in it, they have to bear the brunt of the improbability; if it is presumable that a special Providence precludes such flaws, or compensates for them, they cannot take the benefit of that presumption to themselves; for to do so would be claiming to belong to the true Church, to which that high Providence is promised, and this they cannot do without arguing in a circle, first proving that they are of the true Church because they have valid Orders, and then that their Orders are valid because they are of the true Church.
WMR Notes: Once again, we need to be able to answer the claim that this tells against traditional clergy and in favour of the Novus Ordo clergy.
No-one can credibly claim that traditional groups enjoy the protection that Newman is claiming here.
The answer is that, in addition to disputing that the Novus Ordo machine is the Catholic Church, we must also concede that the situation is abnormal, and that the traditional clergy are operating an emergency and temporary ministry in the ways described in the editorial commentary below:
Thus the Apostolical Succession is to Anglican divines a sine quâ non, not ‘necessitate præcepti’ sed ‘necessitate medii.’ Their Succession is indispensable to their position, as being the point from which they start; and therefore it must be unimpeachable, or else, they do not belong to the Church; and to prove it is unimpeachable by introducing the special Providence of God over His Church, would be like proving the authority of Scripture by those miracles of which Scripture alone is the record.
It must be unimpeachable before, and without taking that special Providence into account, and this, I have said above, it cannot be.
WMR Notes: Once again, let’s note that the rejection of the Conciliar-Synodal revolution, and the conclusion of the extended vacancy of the Holy See are not dependent on the validity or legitimacy of the traditional clergy, which is an independent issue altogether.
It would be theoretically possible for the conceptual analysis to be true despite the illegitimacy of the practical response to it (in the form of the traditional clergy and chapels operating outside of an intruded hierarchical machinery). Even if it were proved, such illegitimacy through the absence of canonical mission would not refute the traditionalist analysis of the Conciliar-Synodal revolution.
The implications of this starting point for Catholics – and the importance of the four marks
We, on our side, on the contrary, are not in such a dilemma as this.
Our starting-point is not the fact of a faithful transmission of Orders, but the standing fact of the Church, the Visible and One Church, the reproduction and succession of herself age after age.
It is the Church herself that vouches for our Orders, while she authenticates herself to be the Church not by our Orders, but by her Notes. It is the great Note of an ever-enduring cœtus fidelium, with a fixed organization, a unity of jurisdiction, a political greatness, a continuity of existence in all places and times, a suitableness to all classes, ranks, and callings, an ever-energizing life, an untiring, ever-evolving history, which is her evidence that she is the creation of God, and the representative and home of Christianity.
WMR Notes: We have already commented on these points, but for greater clarity on how this continues to apply to traditional Catholics today, see below:
She is not based upon her Orders; she is not the subject of her instruments; they are not necessary for her idea.
We could even afford, for argument's sake, to concede to Lord Macaulay the uncertainty of our Succession.
WMR Notes: This comment and some of the following are examples of Newman’s argumentative method, acknowledged as such by all familiar with his work, to appear to grant as much as possible for the sake of argument – i.e., not for the sake of being conciliatory, but rather to show that his argument would still win out, even if other parts of his position were weaker than they really are, and even if his opponents’ positions were stronger than they really are.
He is obviously not saying that Catholics can actually concede these points in reality.
If Providence had so willed, she might have had her ministers without any lineal descent from the Apostles at all. Her mere nomination might have superseded any rite of Ordination; there might have been no indelible character in her ministers; she might have commissioned them, used them, and recalled them at her pleasure.
She might have been like a civil state, in which there is a continuation of office, but not a propagation of official life. The occupant of the See of St. Peter, himself made such by mere election, might have made bishops and unmade them.
Her Divine Founder has chosen a better way, better because He has chosen it. A transmission of ministerial power ever has been, and ever shall be; and He who has so ordained, will carry out His ordinance, preserve it from infraction or make good any damage to it, because it is His ordinance, but still that ordinance is not simply of the essence of the Church; it is not more than an inseparable accident and a necessary instrument.
Nor is the Apostolic descent of her priests the direct warrant of their power in the eyes of the faithful; their warrant is her immediate, present, living authority; it is the word of the Church which marks them out as the ministers of God, not any historical or antiquarian research, or genealogical table; and while she is most cautious and jealous that they should be ordained aright, yet it is sufficient in proof of their ordination that they belong to her.
WMR Notes: Newman’s point here is relevant to our situation. Despite the traditional rejection of conciliar notes of ‘collegiality,’ the concept is nonetheless present amongst many traditional Catholics. This is visible in the way in which the traditional clergy are treated as having authority merely through the fact of their holy orders.
While they are indeed likely to enjoy an intrinsic authority based on their learning, and something of an extrinsic authority based on the relationships which laymen may pragmatically contract with them, they are not the living authority in the relevant sense mentioned by Newman.
We cannot will this specific relation of superior/subject into existence, neither with our chosen clergy, (nor, incidentally, with retired or auxiliary bishops,) no matter how great their learning, sanctity or diligence in their ministry.
Our loyalty and submission are due to the Church herself, and the ministers set over us by her. While we are very grateful for all that ‘the traditional clergy’ do for us, by their own admission they do not occupy offices to which the powers of jurisdiction (or indeed magisterium) are attached. They were ordained for an ‘emergency’ ministry, and exercise a supplied jurisdiction on an act-by-act basis, justified solely by necessity and epikeia. Their priestly fraternities pertain to the formation and education of priests, and they do not claim to govern the laymen ‘attached’ to them – in other words, there is no proper superior/subject relation between these clerics and the laymen associated with them.
Given the chaos of the ‘apostolic succession’ graph above, it is vital that we have the right dynamic in view here. Being pressured into thinking otherwise is quite dangerous.
Thus it would appear, that to Catholics the certainty of Apostolical Orders is not a point of prime necessity, yet they possess it; and for Anglicans it is absolutely indispensable, yet they have it not.
WMR Notes: Again, do not misunderstand what Newman means by ‘not a point of prime necessity.’ He has made clear what he means: this is completely unobjectionable in itself, even if the phrasing may mislead in isolation.
On such grounds as these it is, that I consider the line of argument, which I have adopted against Anglican Orders, is neither open to the charge of scepticism, nor suicidal in the hands of a Catholic.
Conclusion
[…] I have been urging that there is no security for the transmission of the Apostolical Ministry, except as continued in that Church which has the promises.
We must first be sure that we are in that Church, and then we shall inherit the Church's security about her Orders. If we are in the Church, in that case we know well that He, who overrules everything for her good, will have taken full account of the infirmity of her human instruments, and have prevented or remedied, in His own way, any faults which may have occurred in past centuries in the administration of His own ordinance, and will prevent or remedy them still.
Thus the Orders depend on the Church, not the Church on the Orders.
WMR Notes: To conclude, these points do not all tell in favour of traditional clergy. In some ways, they may appear to tell against the latter, but their ministry and acts can be defended in other ways.
However, once we are clear that the Conciliar-Synodal Church is not and cannot be the Catholic Church – and if we have in view the nature of the former – then Newman’s points do indeed tell against the Novus Ordo rites overall.
The only solution that offers peace and secures the common good, therefore, is the universal conditional ordination of all clergy whose orders depend (directly or indirectly) on the reformed rites of Paul VI.
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
The Catholic Encyclopaedia explains the relevance of Matthew Parker to the entire Anglican hierarchy and lineage:
‘Still, for the complete understanding of the history of the subject it is necessary to know something of the circumstances under which Archbishop Parker was raised to the episcopate, and of the further defects which the Anglican succession has been thought to inherit from its relation to the same.
‘This Dr. Matthew Parker was chosen by Queen Elizabeth to be her first Archbishop of Canterbury. The metropolitan see was then vacant by the death of Cardinal Pole, and all the other sees of the kingdom, with a single exception, were vacant likewise, either because of the death of their previous occupants, or because the bishops who survived were, in the eyes of the Government, deprived for refusing to conform to the new order of things.
‘The Queen intended through Parker to raise up a new hierarchy, but a difficulty confronted her. When consecrated himself, Parker could consecrate his intended colleagues; but how was he to get consecrated himself? None of the Catholic bishops still living would consent to perform the ceremony, and in default of them she had recourse to four ecclesiastics of no very high reputation, three of whom (William Barlow, John Scory, and Miles Coverdale) had been deprived by Mary, and the fourth (John Hodgkins) was a turncoat who had been consecrated suffragan Bishop of Bedford in 1537 and had consistently changed with every change of the times.
‘To Barlow was given the lead, and he, with the others as his assistants, consecrated Parker, 17 December, 1559, in the private chapel at Lambeth, using the Edwardine Ordinal. Three days later Parker, with the aid of Barlow, Scory, and Hodgkins, consecrated four others at Bow Church.
‘From these ancestors the whole Anglican succession is sprung. Was, then, the consecration of Parker a valid act? This is the other ground of dispute round which, as a matter of history, the controversy has gathered.
‘It is not a matter of asking what the Ritualists of today think, or what the earlier divines (from the time of William Laud, “Archbishop” of Canterbury in the reign of Charles I) thought about the sacrifice and priesthood of the New Law, or about the force and meaning of ordination. Nor is it a matter of asking what the form now used could perhaps signify.
‘The question to be asked is why and how the Catholic form of ordination (and the whole liturgy likewise) was substantially altered by the first Deformers in the reign of Edward VI, changed into an altogether different rite with another and opposed meaning, and then reintroduced under Elizabeth with the same alterations and for the same causes.
‘For if it is evident, taking into account all the circumstances, that this first change altered the substance of the form, that one fact is enough to establish that Parker, who was ordained according to that new rite in the year 1559, did not receive the episcopal character owing to defect of form.
‘Hence it follows, since the whole of that pseudo-hierarchy sprang from that one root, that all subsequent ordinations, at least until the year 1662, were invalid on two counts – defect of power in the ordaining minister, and defect of form.’
Newman’s Note 2: The principle of the ‘tutior’ opinion applies also to the rule of three bishops for a consecration, about which Hallier says: ‘An consecratio episcopi omnino nulla, irrita, et invalida sit, vel solum illegitima, quæ à paucioribus tribus episcopis peracta fuerit: Caietanus, Bellarminus, Vasquez, et alii affirmantem partem sequuntur (nisi ecclesiæ dispensatio acciderit); negantem vero Paludanus ... Sylvester . . et alii ... Difficilis utique hæc controversia est, in quâ tamen posterior longe probabilior et fortioribus innixa mihi videtur argumentis, ... tamen prior communis est, et hocce tempore magis recepta.’—De S. Ordin. t. 2, pp. 299, 308.
[‘Whether the consecration of a bishop is altogether null, void, and invalid, or only illegitimate, if it has been carried out by fewer than three bishops: Cajetan, Bellarmine, Vasquez, and others follow the affirmative side (unless a dispensation from the Church has occurred); Paludanus, Sylvester, and others follow the negative side... Indeed, this controversy is difficult, in which, however, the latter seems to me far more probable and based on stronger arguments... nevertheless, the former is common and more accepted at this time.’]
Newman’s Note 3: Benedict says, Syn. Diœc. VIII., 10: ‘Quidam sacerdotio initiandus, etsi omnes consuetas manuum impositiones ab Episcopo accepisset, ad Episcopum tamen, solita patenæ cum hostiâ et calicis cum vino instrumenta porrigentem, ad alia tunc temporis distractus, non accessit. Re postea detectâ, quid facto opus esset, dubitatum, atque a S. Congregatione petitum est." After giving his own opinion, "Nihil esse iterandum, sed cautè supplendum, quod per errorem prætermissum," he states the decision of the Sacred Congregation, "Sacra Congregatio totam Ordinationem sub conditione iterandam rescripsit.’
[‘A certain candidate for the priesthood, although he had received all the customary impositions of hands from the Bishop, did not approach the Bishop, who was extending the usual instruments of the paten with the host and the chalice with wine, because he was distracted at that moment. After the matter was discovered, there was doubt as to what should be done, and it was referred to the Sacred Congregation. After giving his own opinion, “Nothing needs to be repeated, but what was omitted through error should be cautiously supplied,” he states the decision of the Sacred Congregation: “The Sacred Congregation responded that the entire ordination should be repeated conditionally.”']
And Scavini Theol. Mor. t. 3, p. 278, referring to the passage in Benedict, says of the "libri traditio" as well as the "manuum impositio" in the ordination of a deacon: "Probabile est libri traditionem esse de essentiâ … quare pro praxi concludimus, utramque esse adhibendam, cùm agatur de Sacramentis; et, si quidpiam ex istis fuerit omissam, sub conditione ordinationem iterandam esse."
[… referring to the passage in Benedict, says about the 'tradition of the book' as well as the 'imposition of hands' in the ordination of a deacon: 'It is probable that the tradition of the book is of the essence ... therefore, for practice we conclude that both should be used when it comes to the Sacraments; and, if anything of these has been omitted, the ordination should be repeated conditionally.'"]
It is true that Father Perrone in 1863, on his asking as to the necessity of the "physicus tactus" (as Father Ephrem before him in 1661) received for answer as Ephrem did, that to insist on it was a scruple (Gury de Ord.); but we are here concerned, not with the mere physical "tactus," but the moral "traditio instrumentorum."
‘You have failed to observe the word “or” in the proposition in which the Bull states what the requirements are. The proposition is disjunctive.
‘The rite for the priesthood, the Pope says, “must definitely express the sacred Order of the priesthood or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.” You do not seem to have perceived the importance of this little word “or,” and have taken it to be the equivalent of “and.”
‘What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which the candidate is being promoted must be distinctly indicated either by its accepted name or by an explicit reference to the grace and power which belongs to it.
‘And, of course, he means us to understand that the same alternative requirements hold with regard to the form for the episcopate. The form must either designate the Order by its accepted name of “bishop” or “high priest,” or it must indicate that the high priesthood is the grace and power imparted.
‘Nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable, for in the Catholic Church the alternative phrases are perfectly equivalent. The Catholic Church has always meant by the term “priest” (sacerdos) a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice, and again by the terms “priest” (presbyter) and “bishop” (episcopus) or “high priest” (summus sacerdos), the possessors of this power in its substance and in its plenitude respectively.’
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}