The Irish standard., 1909-09-11
A JESUIT PRIEST ON
ANGLICAN ORDINATION

A4S A\~AS Va A1ASA - ~AAA&SA SAAS
Sacrifice of the Mass and
Therefore Most Logically
Denied the Priesthood.
I lately lectured to you, my bretn-
rem, on the origin Of Professionalism
in England and proved to you that
not only was the Reformation" en-
sineered by Henry WILL, but that i:
was brought in dead against the will
Of the English people, said Rev.
Charles Coupe, S. j., in a sermon re-
Gently preached by him in Exeter.
England. My authority for that state
ment was the Protestant DIR. James
Gardner, writer on the Tudor period,
with whom no other living historian
can pretend even distantly to COM
pare, and the particular work from
which I quoted was his "Lollardy." In
the lecture referred to I made but a
passing reference to Anglican or
ders, but as my obiter dictum occa-
stoned controversy in the local press,
now take up that subject in more
detail. OF course, Anglicans are no
part Of the Church. whether their or
ders are valid or invalid.
At the outset let me forestall an
objection that the condemnation by
Rome Of Anglican orders is the out
come Of Romes antagonism to Anglt-
canism. That is not SO. For, first,
these orders were condemned at the
beginning Of Queen Mary's reign. when
England was reunited to the, Catholis
church and flve years before any ques-
ton arose as to -Parker's conservation
| as Archbishop Of Canterbury, undo,
Elizabeth. Secondly, 1t is the dogmat-
ic teaching Of the. Catholic church
| Council Of Trent, sess. s. can. 81 that
anyone who affirms that the Sacra-
mont Of Orders can be repeated is ::
hereto; and therefore IL Anglican or
ders were valid, no Catholic could
without grave sin deny them. Thirdly
the Tudor "Reformers" themselves
who framed the Edwardine Ordinn.
and Protestantized England, not only
did not believe in orders, but ostenta-
tiously Haunted their disbelief in them
and changed the ordinal in order ia
express that belief, of course it is
no use to discuss here what post
Reformation" Anglican divines have
taught, or do now teach, concerning
orders; for the golden chain wis
broken under Elisabeth, and can new
er be reunited.
The Anglican, or Edwardine, Ordi-
nal Of 1850 was. at the beginning o.
Mary's reign, ad1udged defective
rite; consequently the ordinations CT
priests and the conservation of bish-
ops and archbishops made under that
rite were invalid. Accordingly, those
bishops who had been consecrated un-
der the old Catholic Pont!Acal and
yet were deprived Of their sees III
Mary's time, were 50 deprived. no,
because they were not bishops, but
because they were heretics, or ha6
married, while those similarly consc-
Grated under the Edwardine Ordinal
we're held to be no bishops at all and
were deprived of their sees. The same
line Of treatment was adopted in re
gard to the lower clergy; those Or
dained according to the Roman form
were, under due circumstances, ab-
solved and restored: those ordained
according to the Edwardine form wer.
either driven forth as not being priest.
at all or were re-ordained according
to the Catholic rite.
! It is, therefore, an historical fact
that in Mary's day and under Cardi-
nal Pole the Edwardine Ordinal was
condemned as an absolutely made.
quate and invalid form. Then let not
the Anglicans Of our time charge Leo
XIII. with hostility and dishonesty
when, at their own request, he re-ex-
amined the question Of Anglican Or
ders. and was compelled by the truth.
again to condemn them as invalid.
Hence when, in Elizabeth's day, An.
glicans were ordained priests and con-
secrated prelates under the Edwardins
Ordinal. it was done under for.r
that had been officially and repeat.
eddy declared by the highest authority
to be invalid. Nay Anglicans gloried
in the fact; for instance the Elizabeth.
! an Bishop Of Salisbury, Jewel, boast
ed that Anglicans were then, unde,
E 9 e. beth. In 1859. ordained under the