A study in irrelevance.
(rerun from June 11, 2009)
Recently, in private e-mail, the Dutch Touch was mentioned, to borrow a phrase coined by someone else for the Infusion of Old Catholic Orders into Anglican Orders by co-consecration. It was mentioned by someone who seemed to suggest that I might consider Anglican Orders to have become valid by the Infusion. Indeed, some who call themselves Anglican may embarrass the rest of us by holding this position, but I do not. We never needed the Infusion, and our Orders were defended against Roman non-sense quite thoroughly before the idea ever presented itself into our history. Reassuring ourselves was never the motive.
For those who are not familiar with the history of this Infusion, I will explain briefly and simply, as to the historic facts and to the concept. In the 1930s the Church of England invited Old Catholic Bishops to participate in consecrations of new bishops. The Dutch Old Catholic bishops, Mgr. Henry van Vlijmen, Bishop of Haarlem, and Mgr. John Berends, Bishop of Deventer, took part in the consecration of Anglican bishops in St. Paul's Cathedral, in 1931 and 1932. The first co-consecration was that of Bishop Graham-Brown, a well known Anglican of the Evangelical party (as it was defined in the 1930s, which is considerably different from how contemporary Reassereters have redefined it). From Bishop Graham-Brown infused orders spread; and the co-consecrations were repeated in several venues, such as co-consecrations with bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States, so that by the early 1960s every Episcopal priest had these orders in his lineage, catching up with the rest of the Anglican Communion which had been thoroughly infused since some time during the 1950s. Therefore, the Orders of all Continuing Anglicans began (1978) with this in our history; all Continuing Anglican Orders have the Infusion somewhere in their family tree. And, to this interesting fact I have only a two word reaction:Who cares?
Unfortunately, some of our Roman Catholic detractors have assumed, wrongly, that the Anglicans sought co-consecration because Rome considered Old Catholic Orders valid, and this meant that Anglicans could supply what was missing, or fix their allegedly bad and defective orders. But, as documented by Brian Taylor 1 from correspondence between Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang and other high ranking Church of England officials, the expressed, written and recorded motive was ecumenical. Not only was it to serve as a way to improverelations with the Old Catholics, but to make Anglican orders "more acceptable to Rome in the event of some future Reunion." 2
The idea, therefore, was never to make them valid, or more acceptable to ourselves. It was an ecumenical gesture, and as such a potential gesture for some day in which it may please God to grant Catholic unity in the West. But, Anglicans had already defended their orders many times over the centuries, and at no time after the Infusion was it mentioned as a relevant factor by any serious Anglican apologist, not even by those who noted it, such as Claude Beaufort Moss in 1965. 3 Dom Gregory Dix made no mention of it in 1944 when writing The Question of Anglican Orders, Letters to a Layman 4. Neither did E. J. Bicknell's book A Theological Introduction to The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, in any of its later editions after revision in the 1950s, so much as say one word about it in the portion of the book where Anglican orders are defended. 5 In short, the Anglican apologetic treatment of the Infusion appears to be summarized by my own reaction: "Who cares?"
Frankly, Saepius Officio,written in 1897 by the Archbishops of England (Canterbury and York) said everything that needed to be said in defense of our Orders, and the best summary anywhere is that of Bicknell.
As for the subject of the Infusion itself, it is a relic of an innocent age of ecumenical hope, that innocence and hope that would suffer destruction for the official Anglican Communion in 1976. If the Infusion may help someday between orthodox Anglicans of the Continuum and Rome or, restart some ecumenical relations with the Polish National Catholic Church, then maybe it will not have been a big wasted effort after all.
Until such a time, who cares?
_________________________
1. In his 1995 paper, published in Great Britain, Accipe SpiritumSanctum.
As our reader who goes by the name of Canon Tallis also pointed out in a comment months ago:
"Marc Antonio de Dominus, sometime Archbishop of Spaleto and Dean of Windsor, participated in Anglican consecrations in the Caroline age before he made the mistake of returning to Rome and their so kind ministrations? I think someone in the Continuum needs to reprint Littledale's The Petrine Claims and make it required reading for both postulants and the clergy."
2. This possibility was never rejected by Anglicans. See this older post analyzing a section of Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.
3. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY - By CLAUDE BEAUFORT MOSS, D.D.LONDON - S.P.C.K 1965 Holy Trinity Church MarylboneRoad London NW 1 - Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd Bungay Suffolk - First published in 1943 - Prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2004
4. Westminster : Dacre Press, 1944.
5. A Theological Introduiction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, (Downloadable) Wittenberg Hall Copyright: © 1955 Public Domain (originally printed before revisions in 1919)
For those who are not familiar with the history of this Infusion, I will explain briefly and simply, as to the historic facts and to the concept. In the 1930s the Church of England invited Old Catholic Bishops to participate in consecrations of new bishops. The Dutch Old Catholic bishops, Mgr. Henry van Vlijmen, Bishop of Haarlem, and Mgr. John Berends, Bishop of Deventer, took part in the consecration of Anglican bishops in St. Paul's Cathedral, in 1931 and 1932. The first co-consecration was that of Bishop Graham-Brown, a well known Anglican of the Evangelical party (as it was defined in the 1930s, which is considerably different from how contemporary Reassereters have redefined it). From Bishop Graham-Brown infused orders spread; and the co-consecrations were repeated in several venues, such as co-consecrations with bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States, so that by the early 1960s every Episcopal priest had these orders in his lineage, catching up with the rest of the Anglican Communion which had been thoroughly infused since some time during the 1950s. Therefore, the Orders of all Continuing Anglicans began (1978) with this in our history; all Continuing Anglican Orders have the Infusion somewhere in their family tree. And, to this interesting fact I have only a two word reaction:Who cares?
Unfortunately, some of our Roman Catholic detractors have assumed, wrongly, that the Anglicans sought co-consecration because Rome considered Old Catholic Orders valid, and this meant that Anglicans could supply what was missing, or fix their allegedly bad and defective orders. But, as documented by Brian Taylor 1 from correspondence between Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang and other high ranking Church of England officials, the expressed, written and recorded motive was ecumenical. Not only was it to serve as a way to improverelations with the Old Catholics, but to make Anglican orders "more acceptable to Rome in the event of some future Reunion." 2
The idea, therefore, was never to make them valid, or more acceptable to ourselves. It was an ecumenical gesture, and as such a potential gesture for some day in which it may please God to grant Catholic unity in the West. But, Anglicans had already defended their orders many times over the centuries, and at no time after the Infusion was it mentioned as a relevant factor by any serious Anglican apologist, not even by those who noted it, such as Claude Beaufort Moss in 1965. 3 Dom Gregory Dix made no mention of it in 1944 when writing The Question of Anglican Orders, Letters to a Layman 4. Neither did E. J. Bicknell's book A Theological Introduction to The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, in any of its later editions after revision in the 1950s, so much as say one word about it in the portion of the book where Anglican orders are defended. 5 In short, the Anglican apologetic treatment of the Infusion appears to be summarized by my own reaction: "Who cares?"
Frankly, Saepius Officio,written in 1897 by the Archbishops of England (Canterbury and York) said everything that needed to be said in defense of our Orders, and the best summary anywhere is that of Bicknell.
As for the subject of the Infusion itself, it is a relic of an innocent age of ecumenical hope, that innocence and hope that would suffer destruction for the official Anglican Communion in 1976. If the Infusion may help someday between orthodox Anglicans of the Continuum and Rome or, restart some ecumenical relations with the Polish National Catholic Church, then maybe it will not have been a big wasted effort after all.
Until such a time, who cares?
_________________________
1. In his 1995 paper, published in Great Britain, Accipe SpiritumSanctum.
As our reader who goes by the name of Canon Tallis also pointed out in a comment months ago:
"Marc Antonio de Dominus, sometime Archbishop of Spaleto and Dean of Windsor, participated in Anglican consecrations in the Caroline age before he made the mistake of returning to Rome and their so kind ministrations? I think someone in the Continuum needs to reprint Littledale's The Petrine Claims and make it required reading for both postulants and the clergy."
2. This possibility was never rejected by Anglicans. See this older post analyzing a section of Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.
3. THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: AN INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY - By CLAUDE BEAUFORT MOSS, D.D.LONDON - S.P.C.K 1965 Holy Trinity Church MarylboneRoad London NW 1 - Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd Bungay Suffolk - First published in 1943 - Prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2004
4. Westminster : Dacre Press, 1944.
5. A Theological Introduiction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, (Downloadable) Wittenberg Hall Copyright: © 1955 Public Domain (originally printed before revisions in 1919)
The only reported case in which this so-called "Dutch touch" has made the slightest difference to the Roman authorities was that of the late Graham Leonard, sometime C of E Bishop of London (he of the 70-deaconettes-at-one-blow). He was conditionally reordained rather than being reordained in absolute form and, at the time, the explanation given for this deviation from the otherwise universal Roman practice was the Old Catholic strain in his ecclesiastical pedigree.
ReplyDeleteBut other than that -- which one suspects must have been largely a political decision, not a theological one, the Bp. of London being a pretty big "catch" in the U.K. -- Rome has completely ignored this theory and continues on its merry way, reordaining Anglican clerics, all of whom should have known better.
So even if one were so short-sighted as to believe that this infusion of Old Catholic lineage was intended to make Anglican clergy acceptable to Rome, it would not have worked....
John A. Hollister+
Thank You for this article. I realized after reading this that I had not read enough history. I had misplaced the dutch touch in our history and thought it was much more recent than it was. It actually makes me feel better about our history and the role that the Dutch touch played in it knowing when it occurred.
ReplyDeleteReading this I think there are two very different infusions which have played a role in our history. These are the two that I had confused. The first being the Dutch touch that you wrote about and the second being the various different lineages that have played a role in consecrations after 1976.
The first was an ecumenical gesture and the second seems to have been more a matter of survival, in finding willing participants to keep the Anglican church continuing (yes I know that is close to a pun).
In re-reading one of my old books, I was reminded that when Elizabeth I was queen the then pope offered to accept the Book of Common Prayer of 1559 if Elizabeth would accept it as coming from him. That and the curious case of Channel Islands being in a French diocese at the time with the French bishop offering to accept such priests as the English church appointed so longs as the islands remained in his diocese gives the lie to the Romans always believing that our orders were invalid. This is entirely political on their part and they know it.
ReplyDeleteOne of my friends formerly in British intelligence told me that when he was stationed in a Middle Eastern capital there was both a Roman and an Anglican priest who were also very close friends - so close in fact that when one went on vacation, the other would take his services and everyone in the local diplomatic circles knew it.
Watching Rome at the moment is very interesting as they are in the process of losing Europe. The men they have made priests and bishops have not been able to make the gospel relevant to the people of even the most "Catholic" countries. We need to consider those countries as missionary territory even as Rome considered Britain as such at the beginning of the seventh century.
Oh, and many thanks for another superb post followed by a wonderful comment by Canon Hollister.
The only reported case in which this so-called "Dutch touch" has made the slightest difference to the Roman authorities was that of the late Graham Leonard
ReplyDeleteI believe you have forgotten John Jay Hughes, who was also (re)ordained sub conditione in 1968. Unless I'm mistaken, the Old Catholic infusion was the determining (or a determining) factor in this. Hughes himself still defends the validity of Anglican Orders, and always has.
I find it baffling that the pedigrees of Hughes and Leonard were deemed sufficient to warrant conditional ordination, whilst the blanket policy of absolute ordination of former Anglican clergy remains in place without challenge.
[W]hen Elizabeth I was queen the then pope offered to accept the Book of Common Prayer of 1559 if Elizabeth would accept it as coming from him.
I do not recall ever seeing the evidence to support this story. It certainly reads as dubious as the Nag's Head fable. I would be grateful if someone could provide a source to some documentation, beyond the polemical writings at the time of the English Reformation.
Joe Olivieri wrote, "I believe you have forgotten John Jay Hughes, who was also (re)ordained sub conditione in 1968."
ReplyDeleteIt has been a while since I read Fr. Hughes' autobiography, but as I recall -- and this recollection could well be faulty --, the circumstances of his (re)ordination were essentially the result of a decision of one European bishop who did not seem even to have referred the matter to Rome.
So Msgr. Leonard's case remains, if I am correct, as the only "official" Roman approval of an ordination sub conditione of a former Anglican cleric.
Then, of course, there were those tens of thousands of C of E priests who in 1552 were continued in their Offices by the Papal Legate, Reginald Cardinal Pole, who only reordained a grand total of about 13, all of which took place nearly 400 years before the "Dutch touch" and so could scarcely have been influenced by it, but no one talks about that any more....
John A. Hollister+
Then, of course, there were those tens of thousands of C of E priests who in 1552 were continued in their Offices by the Papal Legate, Reginald Cardinal Pole, who only reordained a grand total of about 13, all of which took place nearly 400 years before the "Dutch touch" and so could scarcely have been influenced by it, but no one talks about that any more....
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves, at the time of Mary I’s accession, there had been six bishops and some 110 priests and deacons who had been ordained under the Edwardine ordinal. Of this number between 14 and 16 sought and were granted “reordination”. All but two of these “reordinations” were carried out before Cardinal Pole ever arrived in England. When Pole did arrive, these “reordinations” ceased, and the process of reinstituting clergy to their Pastoral offices began (including Bishop Scory, who would later be a co-consecrator of Matthew Parker. Bishop Scory himself was never reordained).
The only “reordinations” that I recall being recorded under Pole (and they are very few) were actually “absolute ordinations” of men who had been granted benefices without ever having been ordained in the first place.
However, my memory is based on somewhat older works; specifically Arthur Lowndes 2-volume “Vindication of Anglican Orders”, written, I believe, in 1897. More recent scholarship may contain more accurate information. The bottom line, of course, is the same as Canon Hollister has implied; Rome had no real problem with the Edwardine ordinal in 1554.
DJJ+
I am very pleased to see with DJJ+'s comment that someone besides myself had read Lowndes' Vindication of Anglican Orders. It is a reminder to all of us that 19th century English and American theologians produced much from which we can yet profit if we would but read and re-read them.
ReplyDeleteAs for Joe Oliveri's comment, I know of no one who seriously has studied the history of the Elizabethan period and read most if not all of the state papers who doubt's the story. Letters and other communications from the bishop of Rome would not have made it beyond the hands of Elizabeth's senior advisers, but it was talked about in her court by people who had ways of knowing. On the other hand, I have never seen an attempt of Rome to refute it, and since the Cardinal of Lorraine recommended to Trent that the Roman Church adopt the whole of the English reform, there were at least senior Roman clerics whose actions and writings make it most plausible. But the King of Spain wanted what he lost with the death of Queen Mary and it was known that his opinion was what that really mattered at Trent.
As a Roman Catholic theologian who has spent more than a decade studying this issue, I chime in agreement with my Anglican brothers and sisters. Their orders are as valid as ours. As the English archbishops said so very clearly (and accurately) in Saepius Officio, the standards of Apostolicae Curae invalidate Roman orders as thoroughly as they would Anglican!
ReplyDelete