The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-09-23

theOl0glanS for three hundred years,
some favoring one side and some the
other. 1t meant much to the Catholic
Church, and very much more to
Anglicans, if their ordinations could
be accepted by the Catholic Church
as valid. 1t meant the return of Eng
land to the one Fold and that the
Anglican bishops and priests were
really and in truth bishops and priests
of Gods Church. having the same
powers of the priesthood that Jesus
Christ conferred upon his Apostles.
For one reason and the other Pope
Leo XIII took so deep an interest in
the question that he appointed spe-
Cial commission, consisting of eight
divines learned in the matter, four
of whom were in favor of recognizing
the Anglican orders and four disposed
to reject them, to sift and examine
most thoroughly all the evidence
bearing on the case. The results of
their study were placed before body
of judges presided over by the Pope
himself. The decision reached was
published by Pope Leo XIII as a final
judgment and intended by him to set
tie the question forever. Everyone
knows that the decision rejected the
validity of Anglican orders.
This review of the history of the
case shows somewhat it's weighty i'm
portance. The question presupposes
some knowledge of the nature of a
sacrament, for Holy Order is one of
the sacraments. We presume that
everyone knows the meaning of a
Sacrament; that it is an outward sign
instituted by Jesus Christ to give
grace. Both sides to the controversy
agree on this elementary question;
namely, that sacrment must be in
stituted by Jesus Christ and consist
of some outward mark or sign that
can be discerned by the senses,
through which the grace or power
attached to this sign by Jesus Christ
is conferred upon another. Those
who administer the sacraments must
do so as the representatives of Jesus
Christ, intending to do what Jesus
Christ has ordered should be done
This is called the intention" of the
minister of the sacrament. Boys,
swimming in a lake, might splash
water upon one another; but they
would have no intention of admins
tering baptism; nor would there be
any sacrament. A priest might read
the words of the institution of the
Holy Eucharist, as contained i'll the
Gospel, in dining room with bread
on the table before him, but there
would be no conservation simply be-
cause the priest had no intention of
Consecrating. The act presupposes
intelligence, and the agent or minister
acts in the name of another The in
tention of the minister then, is abso-
lutely essential to the validity of any
sacrament.
Again the words or form" used in
any sacrament must express definitely
the grace or power that is conferred.
To pour water upon a person might
be done for many purposes. To
attach to that act the words, 81 hap.
tie thee in the name of the Father
aud of the Son and of the Holy Ghost
is to give to the act of pouring the
water a very definite meaning; name.
ly: to cleanse from sin, to admit the
soul into the kingdom of God. To
impose hands upon another has no
definite meaning. 1t may be to bless
to absOlve, to confirm, to ordain; or
it may be only simple GESTURE but
when certain words are attached tC
this outward act, the meaning of the
act is thereby expressed. When the
bishop imposes hands over a person
and prays that he may receive the
Holy Ghost, the spirit of Wisdom and
understanding, counsel and fortitude
knowledge and piety and the fear OF
the Lord, the outward act is nc
longer indefinite. 1t requires a speci
tic meaning. 1t tells us that he is
comforting the Holy Ghost upon those
over whom he prays, strengthening
them with the sevenfold gift of the
Holy Spirit. In a similar way, if the
priesthood is, to be conferred the
act, for instance, the imposition oil
hands, must express some idea of this
altogether meaningless, will certainly
not convey any priestly power
There will be no valid ordination, nc
sacrament of Holy Order.
With this explanation given we
have now only to appeal to history tc
enable us to decide if these necessary
conditions were fulfilled in admins
tering Anglican orders. We claim
that the facts of history show very
clearly that both the intention of the
minister and the words or form" OF
the sacrament as used by the Angli
can minister were essentially defec
tive; that he had not the intention
of comforting the powers of the priest
hood, nor did he use any words that
could reasonably be understood tC
convey the priestly powers. Both OF
these circumstances obtained in the
Anglican Church for upwards of one
hundred years, from 1858 to 1862. II
follows that any powers of the priest
hood that had previously existed in
that community must have ceased tc
exist before 1862 The Apostolic sue
cession was lost during this period oil
one hundred years.
History shows an absence of the
necessary intention" in the minister
Of the Anglican orders. He had nc
wish to confer the essential power oil
the priesthood; the power, namely
of 0H