Do Anglicans Have a Valid Eucharist?
July 10, 2012 15 Comments
Dr Taylor Marshall, a former Episcopal priest, looks at the question of whether or not the Anglican Eucharist is valid, on his blog Canterbury Tales.
Thomas Cranmer – the Greatest Rascal Archbishop of England
I received an email from Harry after the EWTN The Journey Home interview on July 2 asking this same question: Do Anglicans have a valid Mass?
Here’s the short answer: No, Anglicans or Episcopalians (the tradition deriving from Henry VIII’s Church of England) do not have a valid Eucharist. This question was settled by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in his papal bull Apostolicae Curae on the nullity of Anglican orders, issued 18 September, 1896.
There are two reasons for the nullity of Anglican Holy Orders. After explaining these two reasons, I’ll respond to the objection that Anglicans/Episcopalians have since “revitalized” their Apostolic Succession through the intervention of schismatic bishops of the Old Catholic/Orthodox/Polish National Catholic communities.
There are two reasons for the invalidity of Anglican Orders and Eucharist:
First Reason Against Anglican Eucharist: Invalid Form of Priestly Ordination
In 1550, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (a convinced Protestant) changed the ordination rite for bishops, priests, and deacons. Sacerdotal language was removed and the Roman form was abolished. Without valid bishops, you don’t have valid priests. Without valid priests, you don’t have valid Eucharists. If you don’t have valid Eucharists, you don’t have the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament.
Here’s the timeline for understanding the decline of the Catholic priesthood in England:
1533 King Henry VIII entered into formal schism with the Catholic Church
1535 King Henry VIII punishes Saint John Fisher and Saint Thomas More with martyrdom
1547 King Henry VIII died
After the king’s death, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (a Catholic bishop who had been secretly married) immediately began Protestantizing the Church of England that King Henry VIII had severed from Rome.
In 1547, Peter Martyr Vermigli (a former Augustinian priest who married and became Protestant) and Bernardino Ochino (a former Franciscan priest who married and became Protestant) were both invited to England by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and given a pension of forty marks by the crown.
In 1548 the Protestantized Vermigli was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.
In 1549 Vermigli took part in a great disputation on the Eucharist. Here, Luther’s doctrine of sacramental union of the bread and Christ (sometimes called consubstantiation) was publicly denied. Vermigli instead endorsed the Calvinistic teaching that the Real Presence of Christ was conditioned by the subjective faith of the recipient. For Vermigli, Christ was not objectively present in the Eucharist at all.
In 1549, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer rejected the Latin Mass. Thomas Cranmer invited the arch-Protestant Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli to advise him in the liturgies of the Church of England. Cranmer composed his own vernacular liturgies. The Mass came to be called the service of “Holy Communion.”
In 1550, Cranmer changed the Ordinal – the Ordination rite for the Church of England. This is the official date by which Holy Orders ceased in England.
1553-1558 Queen Mary restored Catholicism to England (along with valid clergy and all seven valid sacraments). Mary had Archbishop Cranmer burned at the stake as a heretic.
1559 Queen Elizabeth I re-issued Archbishop Thomas Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer with it’s faulty ordination rites and liturgies.
It is clear to all that the liturgy influenced and produced by Vermigli, Bucer, Ochino, and Cranmer was a flat out rejection of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the same liturgies officially adopted by Anglicans to this day. While there have been modifications over time (eg 1928 BCP and the Scottish BCPs), they are essentially the same rites with the same theology.
Second Reason Against Anglican Eucharist: Invalid Form of Priestly Intent
The 39 Articles are still the doctrinal formulary of Anglicanism. It is a public document. All clergy in the Church of England had to swear to the 39 Articles which officially rejected transubstantiation. American Episcopalians claim that they don’t necessarily make this vow, but it’s assumed since the document is appended to the ordination rite. The Anglican formulary which all Anglican clerics affirmed reads:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. {Here they vainly claim that “transubstantiation” overthrows the sacrament – that’s rather strong language!}
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. {Notice this forbids the use of tabernacles, monstrances, and Eucharistic processions}
This is a public document expressing the beliefs of Anglicans. It thereby expresses the intent of the minister when he confects the sacrament. Many Anglican priests reject this doctrine of the 39 Articles (they call themselves Anglo-Catholics), but that doesn’t much matter. A public document containing a public heresy must be publicly repudiated and disavowed. Yet, if one were to do this, he would not longer be Anglican. He’d be an independent Catholic claiming to have Holy Orders. Until an Anglican priest makes this public disavowal of heresy, he is still submitting to it and cooperating with it. Moreover, most Anglo-Catholic priests tolerate these public errors as espoused by their bishops and brother clergy.
A real Catholic would perceive the words of the 39 Articles as a grave and public crime against the Kingship of Christ. The 39 Articles are a blasphemous denial of transubstantiation and also of the revered doctrine that the Eucharist should be reserved or lifted up. A real Catholic would publicly recant of these errors. Anglo-Catholics, instead, wink at the Anglican error regarding the most Blessed Sacrament and pretend that they have everything in common with Catholic priests. The truth is that the Book of Common Prayer was built and structured to frame the Calvinistic theology of Cranmer, Bucer, and Vermigli. A false theology that holds that Christ is not objectively present in the Blessed Sacrament.
What about the claim of a “revitalized” Anglican Apostolic Succession?
Now then, there are Anglo-Catholic priests that have received valid ordinations by dissenting Catholic bishops and who openly profess belief in transubstantiation. Is their Mass valid? Perhaps. Yet many of these priests openly concelebrate with “women priests” or allow “women deacons” to serve their liturgies. This alone reveals that they do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood and Eucharist. The orthodox doctrine of Holy Order prohibits the ordination of women to any degree of Holy Orders (even to the ministerial diaconate).
Those Anglo-Catholics who do not compromise by serving alongside women clerics are still living a double life. Even if a man were validly ordained and had proper intent to consecrate and sacrifice, his willingness to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ apart from the Holy Father in Rome renders every consecration as an act of schism. While the Mass is itself valid and glorifying to God, it is still a sacrilege for the priest who celebrates it. Think of a Catholic priest. If the priest is in mortal sin, he commits sacrilege, but his Mass is valid.
The Catholic priesthood and the Eucharist were never meant to be severed apart from the Pope and the local Catholic bishop. As Saint Ignatius of Antioch said, where the Catholic bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.
Summary
The Church of England officially denied the sacerdotal and sacrificial priesthood of the Catholic Church including her belief in transubstantiation. This is seen today in the Anglican belief that women can be validly ordained. This entails that Anglicanism does not and never has enjoyed a valid priesthood. Even if there are rare exceptions, it would be objectively evil for such priests to celebrate the Mass while being in schism with the Holy Father of Rome.
Consolation for Anglican Clergy Having been an Anglican clergyman, I was uncomfortable with the teach of Apostolicae Curae and it’s conclusion that Anglican Orders were utterly null and void. Pope Leo XIII offers these comforting words to those Anglican clerics who make the difficult and burdensome decision to repudiate their ministry and enter in to the Catholic Church. The Pope promises that they will receive a special hope and reward on the Last Day. This is the beautiful conclusion to Apostolicae Curae:
39. We wish to direct our exhortation and our desires in a special way to those who are ministers of religion in their respective communities. They are men who from their very office take precedence in learning and authority, and who have at heart the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Let them be the first in joyfully submitting to the divine call and obey it, and furnish a glorious example to others.
Assuredly, with an exceeding great joy, their Mother, the Church, will welcome them, and will cherish with all her love and care those whom the strength of their generous souls has, amidst many trials and difficulties, led back to her bosom. Nor could words express the recognition which this devoted courage will win for them from the assemblies of the brethren throughout the Catholic world, or what hope or confidence it will merit for them before Christ as their Judge, or what reward it will obtain from Him in the heavenly kingdom! And we, ourselves, in every lawful way, shall continue to promote their reconciliation with the Church in which individuals and masses, as we ardently desire, may find so much for their imitation. In the meantime, by the tender mercy of the Lord our God, we ask and beseech all to strive faithfully to follow in the path of divine grace and truth.
May our separated Anglican brothers and sisters find a comfortable home in the bosom of Holy Mother the Church. We should pray and fast for them to receive these special graces. Moreover, we should be kind and patient as they come into the Catholic Church.
ad Jesum per Mariam,
Taylor Marshall, PhD
About Fr Stephen Smuts
I think that Fr Huncwicke has addressed the issue in a more balanced way.
“The participation of Dutch Tutchers I regard as adequate to settle any doubts there may be (…) The action of the Church of England in getting the Tutch I regard as a solemn, significant and meaningful ecclesial act, and in this context I regard the reality of the diffusion of the Tutch as morally certain.”
“The old cry of Anglican Catholics, that Apostolicae curae ought formally to be declared of no effect, has now been completely overtaken by events, and it is the very height of folly to persist with it. We are now in a position of having profound doubts too about the Orders of many Anglican ‘priests’ … well, doubts does not put it strongly enough. Given the percentage of women priests in the Anglican churches, and the growing numbers of men ‘ordained’ by women bishops, campaigns to vindicate the validity of Anglican Orders as a category: that is to say, the Orders of ALL who have received Anglican Ordination, are anachronistic to the point of complete folly. An increasingly large percentage of them are completely null and utterly void from our point of view too. (…) We are joining the ranks of those who demand “You must be ordained because your Anglican ‘Orders’ are invalid”! We will increasingly incur the same hurt anger that until recently was reserved for proponents of Apostolicae curae! Remember what an outraged uproar there was in General Synod when it was explained that if a priest ordained by a woman bishop wished to work in one of our parishes, he would have to be reordained!”
And he also cites Fr Aidan Nichols:
“Those Anglican clergymen who feel morally certain of the sacramental reality of their Orders can draw consolation from the fact that, whereas the practice authorised by Apostolicae curae still continues (since the teaching of that bull remains the thesis in possession), the applicability of its teaching to their own Orders today is not itself unconditionally proposed by the contemporary Roman Church.”
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/search?q=orders
Off topic but I’m delighted to say that it appears that Fr Hunwicke will soon be resuming blogging. He has just changed the name of his blog.
Yes, I saw that. Good news indeed.
I agree with Fr. Hunwicke. It is a bit like the Swedish Orders – Rome never made an official declaration, but the point is now moot. Needless to say, both Caroline Ordinal and the Dutch Touch were outside the purview of Apostolicae Curae; but I always thought Dutch touching was a splendid example of hedging one’s bets!
Oh those Lund Swed’s…Nathan Soderblom, Yngve Brilioth, Gustaf Aulen, etc., and those Anglicans that brought them to us, like Fr. A. G. (Gabriel) Hebert, S.S.M. Fr. Hebert unlike later Anglican exponents of the Liturgical Movement, he sought to work within the BCP, rather than mess with it (beyond repair), or replace it. Of course these men are long gone now! (Their hayday was in the 1930′s).
This is an old argument and debate, and if one does not believe in the “Real Presence” in either some aspect to the Anglican Eucharist, and the Lutheran, then one should go to Rome or the EO. Just about as simple as that! And allowing the Roman pontiff’s (Leo XIII, etc.) to decide, simply is not the Anglican way or history! I could bring up plenty of Anglican writings here, old and newer, etc. Indeed the Anglican Articles, both the Thirty-Nine, and the Irish Articles 1615 simply do not support the idea of a “metaphysical” change in the elements themselves! Note as our Lord said, in “spirit and truth”!
Btw, I wish some of my Anglican brethren would read and check out John and Charles Wesley here, both these great men were Anglicans, and they certainly practiced a unitive doctrine of the sacraments, both Baptism and the Holy Eucharist! In fact John & Charles correctly placed (as Anglican Evangelicals), the theology of the Sacraments in the place of the “ordo salutis”, here is the systematic understanding of the way God dispenses his salvation, i.e. the Salvation History of God, and the Covenant! Thus only the frame of reference of God’s grace, expressed in terms of prevenient, convincing, justifying and sactifying grace (as Augustine) is truly the Biblical Revelation! Consequently, the means of grace (and thus also the sacraments) are the “ordinary” channels whereby God conveys his grace to men. And therefore, the “means” of grace (the Sacraments) function only within the soteriological framework of the “ordo salutis” and must only be treated systematically within this structural frame. And for the Wesley’s, this means of grace (Word & Sacrament), really follows as Augustine, in a “sacramental grace”, but always within the sacramental symbol of the visible word, i.e. for the Anglican ‘sign & seal’. Again, simply but profoundly ‘Word & Sacrament’!
King Arthur wielding any sword does not make it Excalibur.
Even if a bishop was validly consecrated, he would still employ the Anglican rite to ordain Anglican clergy. In the past Roman Catholic apostate bishops who used the Anglican rite were judged not to be able to confer the sacrament of Holy orders.
The Biggest proof that Anglican orders are invalid is the fact that thousands ( in fact a majority of Anglican clergy) reject the idea. In England, the Protestantism of Cranmer has never died out.
Cardinal Newman, stated,” our Lord would not leave himself in such custos. ”
Evangelicals regularly throw out the bread and wine ( in most cases unfermented fruit juice) after communion, and they make no pretence of their services being a Mass.They don’t pray for the dead , let alone offer Mass for them.
Interestingly the Old Catholic churches may now have lost valid orders, by its acceptance in the Union of Utrecht of female ordinatation.They clearly do longer intend to do what the Church does, and thay now have their own native character and spirit.
With Cranmer that spirit was Protestantism..with Old Catholics today it is liberalism.
And then there is, what I have been seeking to maintain, a true Anglican Ethos (historically & hopefully biblically), the church of the via-media, or middle way: “catholic” & “reformed”! Yes, indeed the best history of the Anglican Communion is with Cranmer, a church both Protestant – Reformational-Reformed and yet Catholic! And in reality, there is no spirit of “liberalism” here, but a Church as we can see in 1 Tim. 3:15-16!
*Certainly perhaps, the majority of this “church” and body is in the ground, “asleep in Jesus”, but only God knows. Perhaps they shall rise-up against us, or this generation at the Judgment? (Matt. 12:41) And of course it will be Christ Himself!
Btw, one would hope that at least some Anglicans would read some of Charles Wesley’s hymns on the Eucharist? . . .
‘O The Depth of Love Divine
Th’ Unfathomable Grace!
Who shall say how Bread and Wine
GOD into Man conveys?
“How” the Bread his Flesh imparts,
“How” the Wine transmits his Blood,
Fills his Faithful Peoples Hearts
With all the Life of God?’
Indeed, I see only “biblical mystery” here! And then there is the Paschal mystery itself, Christ before He was the sacrifice, at the Passover meal. Certainly a “sign” and “seal” pointing forward itself! (1 Cor. 5: 7-8)
Irish Anglican has obviously not read the John Wesley’s “letter to an Irish Roman Catholic”.Here he condems all that Anglo catholics have taken on board, prayers for the dead, prayers to teh Saints. etc. The Wesley’s were old High Church and not Anglo Catholic….they were opposed to transubstantiation, a corporal real presence and a propitiatary understanding of the eucharist.
In the Church of Ireland eucharistic reservation is still illegal and not one in a hundred Anglican ministers in Ireland pretends his communion service is the Mass.Even the form of absolution was struck out of the Church of Ireland BCP.
@Robert I.W.: I have actually read that, as I have all of John Wesley’s works! And, I am NOT at all supporting the reserved sacrament (not sure what your reading into what I have written?) The Wesley brothers were Anglicans all the way, but they came very close in their language to the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist! The examples are many, in both their hymns and theological writings. And btw, technically the Tractarian or Qxford Movement of course came later! Want to try again?
This link might be helpful…
http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/tractarian.html
And let’s also realize that the lines today between High Church and Low Church, are often close together, in many of us Anglican’s. I do consider myself somewhat High Church on the Ecumenical Councils, at least the first 5. And somewhat too on the Sacraments, but certainly more from Luther’s sense. And btw, I know too a few “sacramental” Methodists (English).
So why do you call yourself father..a term almost unheard of amonsgt the clergy of the Church of Ireland?
The Old battle lines between low church and high church are as important today as they were hundred years ago. yesthey have become co-belligerents against liberalism…. but in many ways their gospel interpretations still contradict.
An Evangelical Anglican does NOT pray for the dead, ask the Saints to pray for him, believe the Eucharist is a propitiatary scarifice, worship the consecrated elements, that baptism is regenerative, that ordained priestly ministry is sacerdotal etc.These are the true heirs of Cranmer.
@Robert I.W.: Indeed you have no idea how often I get this so-called question from people, of course usually not Anglicans. First, though I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin, I later went to England, and there I was educated theologically, etc. And then I was Anglo-Catholic as an Anglican for many years, note I am 62 (3 in a few months). Though I am very aware of the Church of Ireland! And, there are not a few Irish Anglicans who are certainly High Church, and somewhat Roman friendly. But indeed it appears to be somewhat eclectic, of course I speak more of some clergy. And yes, there is always that evangelical low church and high church tension and debate. But as I have written time and again, at least as concerns myself.. I am one of those “eclectic” Anglicans, note again I hold two doctorates (one of which was written on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross), so I have a sort of Low Church evangelical, with a certain High Church eclecticism. And as I think if we look closely at the Wesley brothers, we will see this real Anglican eclecticism, certainly in their theology! Luther and Calvin affected John most certainly! See, if you can find a copy of the book: John Wesley on the Sacraments, A Theological Study, by Ole E. Borgen (a Norwegian Methodist, who must be before the Lord now). My copy is a hardback, 1972 Abington, but printed in English in Switzerland. A must read for scholar types!
Now, as concerns the term “Father” for some Anglican clergy, we can of course see this in 1 Cor. 4: 15, where St. Paul himself refers to his own ministry as that of a “Father”…’For in Christ Jesus through the good news I Begot-You!’ Of course this is a pastoral ministry, but Paul can even ask them to be “Imitators of me”, (verse 16). So we can see that the presbyter is to be a “shepherd” like as was Christ!
Btw, if you like Cranmer, let me recommend Diarmaid MacCulloch’s historical book & bio: Thomas Cranmer, A Life. (Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1996). I have the first edition hardback.
Within the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps other rites under her mantle as well, there were (possibly are) a number of Saints and Mystics that lived solely on the Eucharist–the absence of any intake of food or liquid, including water; the German Mystic Therese Newman comes to mind–who lived over 30 years surviving ONLY on the Eucharist.
I was wondering: are there any ‘Anglican Mystics’ who lived in this same manner as well – giving Witness to the ‘Doctrine of the Real Presence’ or the ‘Doctrine of Transubstantiation’?
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I have had a profound and personal experience of ‘The Real Presence’ of Jesus in the Eucharist–HIS beating, pulsing Sacred Heart! It is an ever-fresh and vivid clairty…of HIS Living Being…capable of and continuously Transforming my mortal flesh, as well as all those who receive HIM worthily–in the exact purpose and manner as given through HIS validly Ordained Priests–grafted to the VINE–of the ONE Who ALONE can give LIFE! I have this Assurance and Certainty, beyond any shadow of a doubt, within Christ’s Catholic Church; She points the WAY to Jesus, Her Spouse: “To Whom shall I go, YOU have the words of Eternal Life”!!