The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1909-09-11
A.jESU|T PRIEST ON
ANGLICAN ORDINATION

Sacrifice Of the Mass and
Therefore Most Logically
Denied the Priesthood.
I lately lectured to you, my bretn-
rem, on the origin Of Protestantism
in England and proved to you that
not only was the Reformation" en-
gineered by Henry VIII. 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 quoted was his "Lollardy." In
the lecture referred to made but a
| passing reference to Anglican or
ders, but as my obiter dictum occa-
stoned controversy in the local press,
I 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 Rome's antagonism to Anglt-
canism. That is not SO. For, first,
these orders were condemned at the
beginning 5of Queen Mary's reign. when
/ nEland was reunited to the Catholts
Eehurch ana hys years before any quss-
l,tion arose as to sParker's conservation
as Archbishop OF Canterbury, undo,
Elizabeth. Secondly, it IL the dogmat-
ic teaching of the. Catholic church
Council Of Trent, sess. 8. can. 9) that
anyone who afflrms 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 thera
and changed the ordinal in order to
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 w4s
broken under Elizabeth, and can new
er be: reunited.
The Anglican, or Edwardine, Ordi-
nal Of 1850 was. at the beginning OF
Marys reign. adjudsed defective
rite; consequently the ordinations OF
priests and the conservation Of bisll-
ops and archbishops made under that
rite were invalid. Accordingly, those
bishops who had been consecrated un-
der the old Catholic Pontifical and
yet were deprived Of their sees ii,
Mary's time, were so deprived. not
because they were not bishops, but
because they were heretics. or had
married, while those similarly consc-
Grated under the Edwardine Ordinal
were 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 priests
at all or were re-ordained according
to the Catholic rite. 4 II; d. i
It is, therefore. an historical fact
that in Mary's day and under Cardi-
nal Pole the Edwardine Ordinal was
condemned as an absolutely inade-
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 truths
again to condemn them ~ invalid.
Hence when, in EIizabeth's day, An
glicans were ordained priests and con-
secrated prelates under the Edwardiua
ordinal, it was done under form
that had bsen officially ana repeat-
edly declared by the highest authority