Sir, I would contest Geoffrey Smith’s claim to “know” that Anglican orders are invalid (letter, June 13) because Pope Leo XIII declared it so. Regardless of the changes made to the Anglican formulary in 1558 the legitimacy of the clergy in England had never depended on the Church of Rome. Bede in his Ecclesiastical History demonstrated how “Ecclesia Anglicana” always was. The early British Church had its principal links with the Churches in Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, rather than Rome. The first Primates of the British Church were consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, not by the Bishop of Rome.
Paradoxically, it appears that the Roman Catholic Church does recognise the validity of the orders of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht and the unbroken apostolic succession of that Church. As there has been an Old Catholic Bishop present at episcopal consecrations in the Church of England since at least 1932, the Anglican Church has surely regained the “apostolic succession” if it lost it in the first place.
GREGORY G. P. WHITE
St Hélier, Jersey
Advertisement
Sir, Geoffrey Smith should perhaps have read the “Answer to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII . . . from the Archbishops of England”, dated March 29, 1897. In this the arguments of the letter Apostolicae Curae are demolished one by one with a wealth of theological and historical scholarship, and the conclusion is reached that on the criteria for validity set by Leo XIII, his own orders would not have been valid either.
The ordinal of 1558 clearly states the intention of continuing to ordain bishops, priests and deacons in a traditional sense. Furthermore, the Anglican episcopate, and therefore the Anglican clergy, derives its holy orders from Archbishop Laud, who was consecrated by bishops — the validity of whose own orders, in the Irish and Italian apostolic succession, is not in any dispute.
The notion that Anglican orders are not valid has long been stone dead in terms of scholarship. It’s time that it was, in the interests of truth and Christian unity, decently interred.
GEOFFREY COX
Athens
Advertisement
Sir, Geoffrey Smith states that “Anglican clergy are not priests in the traditional, Christian understanding of the term” and suggests that the appointment of women bishops is therefore something of a red herring. Christians, however, differ in their understanding of the term “priest”, some viewing it in a different, more inclusive light. These people relate more fully to the concept of a “priesthood of all believers” with Christ as the only head of the Church. They view all their “brothers and sisters in Christ” as being “called to ministry”; for some this service involves leadership in the Church.
It might be interesting to imagine what Jesus might say to a bishop dressed in all his finery. We can think how Jesus might also question some of the concerns of today’s church officialdom. Has the Church become an unwieldy institution rather than a fully functioning, serving community? If there were broader and more balanced participation at all levels, and in all spheres of governance, surely the Church could increase its effectiveness and improve its authenticity. A crucial question is whether the established Church is able to cast out its net and value such contributions rather than depending on an array of synods whose membership may be self-perpetuating and socially unrepresentative of the broader Christian community.
Advertisement
KAREN WESSON
Abingdon, Oxon