ARE ANGLICAN ORDERS VALID?
by Fr John Hunwicke SSC

It is the doctrine of the Catholic and Roman Church that valid sacraments both can and do exist outside the visible body of those who are canonically in full communion with the Holy See - or, as people used to say, "outside the Church"  . . . not that anybody says that nowadays.

Vatican II referred to those bodies with valid Orders as Churches, and this teaching has been deepened by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), in a profound and in some ways revolutionary document bearing all the marks of the Cardinal Prefect's - Joseph Ratzinger's - distinguished mind. The Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of the Church understood as Communion of 1992 (especially paragraph 17) makes clear that 'in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church becomes truly present' (compare Dix, Shape of the Liturgy, pages 271-2). Despite, therefore, our sad separation from the Chair of Unity, we know - and at this difficult time we do well to assert with pride and certainty - that as we stand at the altar offering the Immaculate Lamb day by day, we are not unchurched individuals furtively scraping together a few crumbs of grace in a place of schismatical outer darkness; we stand there in and of the Catholic Church.

But are Anglican Orders valid? We can't expect to get away with ducking this one. Even, however, if we tried to, that would not excuse the theological advisers of the English RC bishops for perpetrating - and repeating - a phrase which is very puzzling in terms of Catholic sacramental theology. After Low Week, both in 1993 and 1994, they recalled the positive remarks of Vatican II about non-Catholic ecclesial groups and their ministries: and then went on: "however . . . the fulness of Catholic life, and the orders which are part of it, is to be found in the visible communion of the Catholic Church". The word 'however' makes clear the connection with what precedes: the sentence quoted is not designed to assert that RC orders are valid - this is not what any present debate is about -  but to assert a negative - ie that "the fulness of Catholic life and the orders which are part of it" are not to be found in 'non-Catholic' ecclesial groups.

Catholic Anglicans are likely to have sympathy with an assertion that 'the fulness of Catholic life is not to be found' in separated communities (although we are entitled to prefer the CDF way of putting it: separated Churches with valid sacraments have a 'wounded' existence: balanced as it is by the statement that the division also 'wounds' the Roman Unity). We vividly regret what we lose by our separation from the Holy Father, both because of our belief in his God-given role as the Universal Church's infallible Pastor, and because of our particular affection for the great pontiff who currently occupies Peter's Chair. Existing as we do under a Metropolitan who calls people heretics whenever he feels like it, we would particularly value Rome's universal jurisdiction: a system which can even discipline an erring Archbishop has the capacity to stretch out its protective hand to Christ's people anywhere and by delivering them from persecution to set them free to serve the Lord in joy.

What is objectionable, however, is the insertion of the words "and the orders which are part of it". These words seem to mean either that it is only in canonical union with Rome that valid orders exist; or that being a priest is a matter of percentages - and that only in visible union with Rome does one have the full 100%. Each of these is contrary to the faith and to the magisterial declarations of the Catholic Church. A man is either a priest or not a priest; and valid orders do exist outside the visible Roman Unity. The intention of the formula, I think, is clear: whoever drafted it was trying to speak kindly of Anglicans but to conclude by asserting that - despite everything positive that could be said  - we can't really have Priesthood and Eucharist because we're outside the Church. But the CDF has given us a much better read than Westminster: if a community has Priesthood and Eucharist, there is the Church.

But are our Orders valid? This is not the forum to reopen all the aspects of a subject over which so much ink has been spilled. But one or two recent developments call for comment.

It will be recalled that the arguments of the Bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896 have been variously interpreted by RC writers. As that Catholicae Veritatis Doctor Eric Mascall put it with  characteristic acerbity, "the chief handicap with which an Anglican is faced in discussing the Roman Catholic case against Anglican Orders arises from the fact that he can never be quite sure what that case is going to be". Their problem is that the Anglican sacramental Matter (imposition of hands) is faultless; attempts to show that the Form (the words) is in itself inherently inadequate have never held water; and however heretical some Anglican bishops have been, this, in itself, has no effect upon the validity of their sacramental actions. The locus classicus here is Bellarmine, de sac. in gen., XXV11:8: "There is no need to intend to do what the Roman Church does, but what the true Church does, whatever the true Church is, or what Christ instituted, or what Christians do: these all amount to the same thing. You will ask: what if somebody were to intend to do what some particular and false Church does-which he thinks to be the true Church - e.g. the Church of Geneva - and were to intend not to do what the Roman Church does? I reply: even that is enough. For the man who intends to do what the Church of Geneva does, intends to do what the Universal Church does. For he intends to do that same thing which such a Church does because he thinks that it is part of the true, Universal Church: even though he is in error in recognizing the true Church. However, the mistake of the minister about the Church does not destroy the efficacy of the sacrament: only lacking an intention can do that".

An article in The Tablet (30 iv 1994) by Fr Michael Jackson made clear that the currently fashionable argument against Anglican Orders now goes something like this. Anglican Orders would be valid, however heretical some bishops have been, if they had used one of the many different pre-l549 Pontificals; however, instead, they composed a new rite which, because it eliminated references to sacrifice, consecration and priesthood (references which are not found in ordination rites of the earlier or oriental churches; which were declared by Pope Pius XII in 1948 not to be 'essential and therefore required for validity'; and many of which were removed from the Roman Pontifical of Pope Paul VI), is deemed to have a nativa indoles ac spiritus such as to make it 'insufficient to confer Holy Orders'.

It is difficult to prove, and dangerous to assert, historical negatives. But the doctrine of the nativa indoles ac spiritus is not exactly a commonplace of the theological textbooks, nor has it featured much in other decisions made about non-Catholic sacramental rites. (In Apostolicae Curae, the word spiritus is followed by the curious phrase ut loqunutur - 'as people say' (not reproduced in the CTS crib) - suggesting that the words originate as a rather shamefaced latinizing of English slang phrases like 'the spirit of the thing', rather than as a theological formula with a respectable background.) Baptism, for example, conferred according to a rite from which every reference to baptismal regeneration had been deliberately eliminated, would still be deemed valid if the Matter were satisfactory and the essential Form were verbally adequate. So, in l872, the Consultors of the Holy Office declined to condemn Methodist baptisms in Central Oceania on the ground that it was sometimes explicitly declared by the minister before he baptized that Baptism had no effect on the soul. Of course, the Form used was identical with that in the Rituale Romanum (Ego te baptizo etc). But the essential Form in Ordination (in so far as the concept anyway is not anachronistic) has always differed widely from rite to rite, and it seems unsporting to condemn the Anglican Ordinal of 1551 for not preserving what was not declared until 1948 to be the essential Form of the 1596 edition of the Pontficale Romanum. The associated claim that in an English Reformation context 'priest does not really mean priest in the Catholic sense' sounds plausible until one recalls that in an Oceanic Methodist context 'baptize does not really mean baptize in the Catholic sense'.

It is, accordingly, hard to avoid the feeling that Nativa indoles ac spiritus was, if not invented, at least drafted specially into service for Cardinal Vaughan's onslaught upon Anglican Orders. Naturally, this leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. But I would like to make a slightly unusual suggestion about what our attitude might be.

We thank God that throughout the Protestant Apostasy of the Sixteenth Century, valid sacraments, the essentials of Catholic life, and a stream of orthodox doctors were preserved to us. But we should acknowledge that, despite the truth of this, the great historical fact is that, for hundreds of years, the community of which we are the inheritors defined itself in broad, popular, international and cultural terms by opposition to Rome, to priesthood, and to sacramental religion. We helped to torture and kill those who perceived themselves - and were perceived by others - to be maintaining these things. So, when our Victorian predecessors reclaimed for us recognition of our Catholic status, it was rather as if the Prodigal Son, not content with hoping for a forgiving welcome, was putting in (and sometimes rather aggressively so) a demand that everybody should now pretend that he'd never really even left home at all. I wonder if we should see Apostolicae Curae as God's judgment on our Anglican arrogance; His way of telling us that for centuries we persecuted other Christians and then, when we finally realized that they had been largely right all the time, we couldn't even be decently apologetic and humble about it.

As an objective fact, I am morally certain that our Orders are valid: but I feel that (especially to Anglicans who respect the Holy See) this disciplinary decision - idem caput disciplinae - has a juridical status to which we should be prepared in humility juridically to submit. Somehow these opposing imperatives both have to be served. This is where we recall that the Bull only said that our Orders were, in 1896, invalid; not that it was impossible for valid orders ever in changed circumstances to exist among people called Anglicans. And so it is where we invoke the Dutch Touch Factor - the participation in some Anglican episcopal consecrations of 'Old Catholic' bishops. There is no need for this Note to repeat the information in the two Tablet articles of 30 iv 1994 and 7 v 1994. But readers might like a little more factual information.

A very important figure to watch is Bertram Fitzgerald Simpson. In his consecration as Bishop of Kensington (24 vi 1932) the 'Old Catholic' Bishop of Haarlem participated. Simpson was translated to Southwark in 1941 and not succeeded there until 1959. Most Canterbury consecrations happen somewhere in London, and to achieve a good parade at the laying on of hands, the London bishops - diocesan and suffragan -  are told to turn up with their shoes polished. So Simpson, for sorne 27 years, took part in a large number of the Southern Province's consecrations.

But there is a more important factor even than Simpson's blessed capacity for ubiquity. He was a co-consecrator of Bishop Wynn, who ordained Graham Leonard to the presbyterate. The documentation which Bishop Leonard was able to supply to Rome about Simpson's explicit intention to transmit the 'Old Catholic' succession was an important factor in Rome's decision that Bishop Leonard need only be presbyterally ordained sub conditione (Rome has not given any ruling one way or the other on Bishop Leonard's episcopal orders). Thus 'Simpson' is already a precedent in Vatican praxis; and priests ordained by bishops co-consecrated by Simpson might have a good chance of getting onto the back of the Leonard decision - although the sacramental orthodoxy of any 'links in the chain' might well be an object of scrutiny. (How to check your own 'pedigree'? - you need to know who shared in the imposition of hands upon your ordaining bishop. You could ask Lambeth Palace; or look at the old Oxford-printed Crockfords, which used to give this information.)

And there are some extremely important theological implications of the 'Dutch Touch'. Two may be briefly outlined: firstly; this exercise of sacramental fellowship would hardly have been agreed if the Church of England's life-style and international ecumenical posture had not come (as a result of the Catholic Revival) to look 'Catholic'. Secondly; when the participation by 'Old Catholics' in Anglican episcopal consecrations began, a (Latin) protocol was agreed by both Churches making clear that this participation constituted a transmission of the Apostolic Succession as the 'Old Catholics' had received it; and Simpson executed a document making clear his "express intention of transmitting (to those he co-consecrated) the Old Catholic succession". Both of these documents constitute a tacit reference to Apostolicae Curae and imply a willingness to address that Bull as a significant reality in ecclesial life. In a sense, they say "We care about Pope Leo's condemnation of our Orders; and we are remedying the alleged defect in ways that (we hope) will be acceptable in his terms". (You will not find in the Porvoo Statement any suggestion that Lutheran 'bishops' who are outside the Apostolic Succession have any interest in setting their Orders above question: they don't care about allegations of invalidity because they don't share Catholic sacramental teaching.) But what are the practical implications of the 'Dutch Touch' factor?

One possibility is to follow the path blazed by Bishop Leonard to the goal of Conditional Ordination. The heavy hints dropped by Cardinal Hume discouraging this are, I feel, unfortunate. To repeat those sacraments which imprint a character upon the soul is sacrilege. That is the sole reason why we have sub conditione administration up our sleeves, so that sacramental certainty can be assured without the risk of sacrilege. I think many of us are genuinely puzzled that RC bishops are so indifferent to the risk of sacrilege. And, for an Anglican priest starting a new exercise of presbyteral ministry in visible communion with the Holy See, much of the happiness of the occasion must surely be destroyed by such an act of explicit, although enforced, sacrilege (I think I would rather go to confession after my 'ordination' than before!). Rome's own attitude, if I am analysing it correctly, is much more nuanced. Bishop Leonard's ordination was ordered to be sub conditione, not because Rome had become convinced that his orders were probably or even possibly valid but because there was a prudent doubt concerning their invalidity. In other words, if there is any risk that the sacrament might already have been validly conferred, one must avoid even a slight risk of sacrilege. It must be clear to the people at Westminster that the same doubt is a factor in the situation of pretty well every Anglican priest who rings the doorbell at Archbishop's House. Surely, Catholic Anglicans - having been reminded that the Faith is Table d'Hote, not a la Carte - have a right to be dealt with on a basis of Catholic principle.

The Westminster offer is 'absolute' ordination but with an additional formula which makes very warm remarks about the former Anglican ministry of the individual concerned. It contains, however, the words "your servant . . . now seeks to be ordained to the presbyterate"; so, in effect, it constitutes an extremely polite and amazingly friendly way of affirming the certain invalidity of all Anglican Orders (Dutchmen or no Dutchmen). I do not see how, with integrity, I could take part in these proceedings.

There may be a third possibility. Cardinal Newman had a lot of trouble convincing himself that his Anglican Orders were invalid. And "I was surprised, when I got to Rome m 1846, to find various persons there in the belief that they were valid, and none, I think, clear that they were not" (despite the subsequent  claim of Apostolicae Curae that the matter iam pridem ab Apostolica Sede plene fuisse cognitam et iudicatam). His ordination was ritually 'absolute', but with the assurance that the 'condition' would be 'implied . . . in the Church's intention' (Ker pp 321 and 466). I leave it to the expert to resolve whether the juridical integrity of Apostolicae Curae could be respected by ritually 'absolute' reordination, but that the proceedings be totally private and very low-key - what one distinguished RC theologian with a distinguished record of sympathy for Catholic Anglicans has called the discreet making good of any defects. (The private nature of Bishop Leonard's 'reordination', and the fact that the Holy Father by a personal intervention dispensed him from 'ordination' to the diaconate, afford in themselves an example of 'quiet rectification'.) The conviction of Anglicans that their priesthood truly began at their original Anglican ordination would be safeguarded by the 'reordination's' social and ecclesial marginality and its lack of public ritual assertion.

In one final area regress, rather than progress, has to be reported. Cardinal Willebrands suggested, in his initiative of 1985, that doctrinal agreement between the Roman and Anglican traditions on Eucharist and Priesthood could offer the basis of a new judgement on Anglican Orders. Even if lay presidency is some way off (would even Carey be that stupid?), this hope will have to be abandoned, and not only - not even mainly - because of the Ordination of Women. That decision it was argued, was a broadening of the ministry not involving any doctrinal change. But the proposals in the Porvoo Statement of 1993 are very likely to go through. And not just because of the liberal takeover: some 'Catholics' - even some Forward in Faith people  - seem happy with Danish Lutherans as long as they are male: John Hind, Bishop in Europe; David Silk; John Halliburton. And, by assenting to these proposals, the Church of England will have stated, definitively and solemnly (and without properly consulting its Roman or Orthodox partners in dialogue), its dissent from any doctrine of Apostolic Succession recognizable as such to the ancient Churches of East and West. It will have accepted, as equivalent to its own, the 'priesthood' of Lutherans ordained, sometimes without the laying-on of hands, by 'bishops' who are not in the Apostolic Succession (Together In Mission And Ministry, CHP, pages 28-31 and especially paragraphs 52, 53, 57, 58a iii and 58 b v). One recalls Gregory Dix's words in a similar context "As regards the question of Orders, what these proposals amount to is an official Anglican admission that Pope Leo XIII was right after all in his fundamental contention in Apostolicae Curae. In spite of face-saving phrases about 'the apostolic Ministry' and the future confining of the act of Ordaining to men styled 'Bishops', we should be committed to a formal declaration that by 'Bishops Priests and Deacons' could be meant only the new sixteenth-century conception of the Ministry disguised under the old titles . . . ".

'Porvoo' appears to be based on the truism that the ritual of 'tactile' episcopal succession is not the be-all and end-all of what the Apostolic paradosis means in the life of the Church; rather like saying that using water is not the be-all and end-all of Baptism, so that we needn't be too fussed if it's been missed out - the Theology of those who know that God is not bound by sacraments but have never been told that WE are. One need only take the words of the first report from the Orthodox - RC 'Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue' (1984 -  it included heavyweights-John Zizioulas on the Orthodox side on the RC side Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF; Jan Willebrands, President of the Secretariat for Christian Unity; two other Cardinals, and Louis Bouyer): "The Bishop receives the gift of episcopal grace in the sacrament of consecration effected by bishops who themselves have received this gift, thanks to the existence of an uninterrupted series of episcopal ordinations, beginning from the Holy Apostles"; 'Porvoo'; on the other hand, talks about "an authentic episcopal ministry in a church which has preserved continuity in the episcopal office by an occasional priestly/presbyteral ordination". The need for 'tactile' succession is not explicit in Anglican formularies, (and insisting on it may now feel a little old-fashioned), although the fact that it has hitherto constituted the basis for our judgements about the Orders of other Churches (Swedes, yes; Danes, no) must give it status. But after 'Porvoo' it will no longer be possible for an Anglican to claim that his Church operates by this principle. Thus, doctrine will have been changed.

So much, then, for that bright hope. There is surely now no realistic future for Catholic Anglicans except in terms of what Fr Aidan Nichols, OP, has called the 'selective repatriation' to the Roman Unity of parts of the Anglican community and heritage. Now is the time to reread at least the Conclusion of his fine book The Panther And The Hind (T & T Clark, 1993), with its haunting evocation of a 'group' solution.

Documents relating to the participation in Anglican Episcopal Consecrations by 'OId Catholic' Bishops

Document A. This is the protocol signed by the 'Old Catholic' bishop on each occasion. It guarantees that, at the exact moment at which the English Archbishop imposed hands, so did the Dutchman, and that he said aloud the words which in 1932 were commonly held to be the Form in the Roman Pontifical (Accipe Spiritum Sanctum). It also guarantees, in watertight formulae, the intention of the Dutchman to confer the Catholic Episcopate.

What is likely to have been found dubious about this from a Vatican viewpoint is that the uttering of these particular words (which are not, since 1948, regarded by Rome as the Form) will not - in a ritual situation divorced from the rest of the Pontifical - be regarded as certainly sufficient for validity. If, as Rome says, the Ordinal rite is itself inherently inadequate, then the participation in such a rite of a bishop (however indubitably valid his own orders) using the correct Matter but, for Form, three ambiguous words, may not be safe. However, the sacrament may have been conferred. Hence Conditional Ordination may be appropriate.

Document B. This document appears to have been intended to be signed by Anglican bishops who had 'inherited' the 'Old Catholic Succession', every time they, subsequently consecrated another Anglican. It states that the consecrating Anglican operated as an 'equally-principal consecrator' with the Archbishop, that he used the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, that he intended to convey the Dutch succession and that he intended to convey the episcopate 'in that precise sense in which the episcopate has been understood in the Catholic Church everywhere, always, and by all.'  I write 'appears to have been intended' because I very much doubt whether every Anglican bishop who has inherited the Dutch Touch (either directly from Dutchmen or indirectly through Simpson and others) actually has said those Latin words audibly, and subsequently executed this document, after taking part in Anglican consecrations. Simpson testifies that he did this at a consecration in September 1943, but thereafter 'while I have intended on each occasion to pass on both successions l have only laid my right hand on the head of the bishop, and have not repeated the formula'. (He subsequently clarified and recorded his actions and intentions in correspondence with Canon J. A. Douglas, who had written to him, 'Your recording the fact that you had the intention to pass on the Old Catholic stream of Episcopal Succession might be of no small importance in given future conditions . . . if ultimately the stream of the Old Catholic succession is completely merged with the Anglican . . . the most severe Roman Catholic will find it hard to question the validity of Anglican Orders.') By the time Eric Kemp was consecrated on 23 October 1974, it appears that none of the Archbishop's legal staff knew any Latin or knew anybody who did. Both documents A and B were made out by somebody who, in inserting names, places, and dates, operated on the Lower III principle that if you make nearly every Latin word end in -i, half of them will be right. Even more comically, document B was made out in the name of the Archbishop of Utrecht, who, in solemnly signing it, committed himself to the claim that he himself was consecrated by Michael Ramsey on 23 October 1974 and that he himself on the same day, simultaneously consecrated Enc Kemp, It is a superb piece of mumbo-Jumbo.

However, the main outlines of this whole episode stand out quite clearly and have enormous permanent significance: nothing less than the intended merging of the episcopates and ministries of two ecclesial communities. There has never been any doubt about the validity of the sacraments of the 'Old Catholics' or the Catholic integrity of their teaching about priesthood and episcopacy. Each community in the dealings of the last sixty years has intended that the Anglican episcopate should participate fully in whatever the 'Old Catholic' episcopate has and is. The behind-the-scenes drafting and signing of documents and collection of evidence was unambiguously directed towards the creation of a situation in which the then perceived Roman objections to Anglican Orders would one day have been circumvented. Whatever may be the small print about the current Roman interpretation of Apostolicae Curae, this is the big print.

Thanks are due to the Rev'd. Philip Ursell, Principal of Pusey House, and Stephen Masters, Chaplain to the Bishop of Chichester. And to Bishop Graham Leonard. But the present writer is solely responsible for this interpretative Note.

Document A

PROTOCOLLUM consecrationis episcopalis Rmi Dni .......................................... , episcopi .  ............, in ecclesia  .............................. , die  ......................... episcopo ............... una cum Rmo Dno (archi) episcopo  peractae.

IN NOMINE SANCTISSIMAE TRINITATIS, AMEN. Harum praesentium litterarum tenore Nos,.....................  Episcopus .....................  in Ecclesia Vetero-Catholica ....................., cunctos Christifideles ad quos haec pervenerint certiores facimus, quod die .....................   et mensis .....................  qui fuit Festum ....................... , anno salutis nostrae .....................   in ecclesia ..................... Nos, Episcopus praedictus, consecrationi episcopali Reverendi Domini ........................... electi episcopi ..................... a Reverendissimo Patre ac Domino Domino ..................... (archi)episcopo .....................  celebratae in propria Nostra persona interfuimus atque adstitimus, necnon et impositionis manuum super caput praedicti Domini .....................  participes fuimus, quippe qui in illum ipsum finem (approbantibus Reverendissimis in Christo Patribus ac Dominis .......................................................) venissemus, ut antistitibus Ecclesiarum Anglicanae atque Vetero-Catholicae coniunctim atque aequeprincipaliter novum episcopum consecrantibus caritatis fraternae exemplar omnium hominum oculis praeberetur.

Porro ne futuris temporibus quaestiones vel controversiae circa modum externum consociationis Nostrae cum praedicto Domino (archi) episcopo ................ et cum Reverendissimis confratribus eius Episcopis Anglicanis in dicto consecrationis episcopalis actu oriantur, testamur Nos ambas manus, utpote consecratorem aequeprincipalem, in caput praedicti Reverendi Domini .....................  simul cum Domino (Archi) episcopo .....................  et assistentibus eius episcopis imposuisse, atque verba consecrationis episcopalis quae in Pontificali Ecclesiae Vetero-Catholicae  ..................... praescripta sunt, scilicet ACCIPE SPIRITUM SANCTUM ....................., non arbitrio Nostro privato sed legibus Ecclesiae Vetero-Catholicae obtemperantes, clara voce, ita ut a circumstantibus audiri possent, et LATINA lingua protulisse, uno atque eodem tempore quo praedictus Dominus (Archi) episcopus verba consecrationis in Ordinali Anglicano praescripta, scilicet: Receive the Holy\ Ghost for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God' et caetera quae ibidem sequuntur, pronuntiaret.

Ad abolendam denique atque radicitus tollendam omnem quae oriri posset circa intentionem Nostram dubitationem, Nos, Episcopus praedictus, declaramus atque profitemur Nos in supradicta manuum impositione atque in simultanea verborum ACCIPE SPIRITUM SANCTUM ..................... prolatione praecise et formaliter intendisse.

1. esse, secundum Ecclesiae Vetero-Catholicae leges quae supra commemoratae sunt, comministrum consecrationis episcopalis dicti Reverendi Domini ..................... cum  Domino (Archi) episcopi  ..................... aequeprincipalem; et non tantum merum assistentem vel consecrationis testem;

2. eidem Reverendo Domino ..................... conferre ordinem episcopatus iuxta mentem Sacrosanctae Matris Ecclesiae Catholicae et Apostolicae necnon et Ecclesiarum Vetero-Catholicarum Unionis Ultraiectensis, atque eundem characterem episcopalem quo Ipsi et confratres Nostri Ecclesiarum Vetero-Catholicarum praesules guademus, id est, plenitudinem sacerdotii cum omnibus et singulis functionibus, potestatibus et facultatibus in eadem inhaerentibus, in eo praeciso sensu quo plenitudo sacerdotii in Ecclesia Catholica ubique, semper, et ab omnibus intellecta est;

3.   in eiusdem Reverendi Domini persona tanquam duos. rivulos eius successionis quae                est ab Apostolis coniungere, illum scilicet qui per antistites Ecclesiarum Vetero-Catholicarum derivatur et illum qui per hierarchiam Anglicanam usque ad praesens tempus deducitur.

IN QUORUM FIDEM hanc chartam chirographo Nostro necnon et sigillo Nostro episcopali munivimus.

Datum ..................... die ..................... mensis ..................... anno salutis nostrae

..........................................

De mandato Rmi mei Dni/Episcopi

Et ego, ..................... testor me consecrationi supradictae adfuisse tanquam presbyterum Reverendissimo Domino Episcopo ..................... assistentem, impositionemque manuum eiusdem Episcopi vidisse prolationemque verborum Accipe Spiritum Sanctum audivisse, sicut suprascriptum est.

Document B

IN NOMINE DEI, AMEN

Ego, ..................... Episcopus ecclesiae ....................., per has praesentes cunctos Christifideles ad quos haec sive nunc sive in futurum pervenerint certiores facio, quod anno salutis ..................... atque die ..................... ego, Episcopus praedictus, consecrationi episcopali Rmi Dni ..................... , episcopi ecclesiae ............ a Rmo in Christo Patre ac Domino ..................... archiepiscopo ................. (totius Angliae Primate atque Metropolitano) in ecclesia cathedrali S ..................... apud .....................  peractae adstiti atque manuum impositionis supra caput dicti R. Dni .....................  particeps fui, cum ea intentione quae verbis sequentibus exponitur: scilicet, cum charactere episcopali non tantum per eam succcssionem quae ab Apostolis derivata in ecclesiis Anglicanis constanter et legitime traditur sed etiam per eam quae in ecclesiis Vetero-catholicis hucusque asservata est ipse ego potitus sum, quippe qui A.S. ..................... die ..................... mensis ..................... in ordinem episcopatus iuxta mentem S. Matris Ecclesiae Catholicae et Apostolicae simul a ..................... archiepiscopo ......... atque .....................  episcopo ecclesiae Vetero-catholicae  ..................... apud Batavos (..................... per successionem ecclesiae Vetero-catholicae consecrato) tanquam consecratoribus aequeprincipalibus ipse consecratus sum, volui atque intendi dicto R. Dno .....................  hunc ipsum characterem episcopalem atque sacerdotii plenitudinem conferre quem ipse non tantum ab episcopis Anglicanis sed etiam a praesulibus Vetero-catholicis accepi, ita ut dictus R. Dnus successionis episcopalis non Anglicanae solum sed etiam Vetero-catholicae particeps fieret: ad quem finem ambas manus in caput dicti R. Dni ..................... simul cum Rmo Dno ..................... imposui, atque verba consecrationis episcopalis a Pontificali ecclesiarum Vetero-catholicarum desumpta, videlicet ACCIPE SPIRITUM SANCTUM, clara voce protuli: dictumque R. Dnum .....................  sic in episcopatum consecravi, eo praeciso sensu quo episcopatus in Ecclesia Catholica ubique semper et ab omnibus intellectus est.

In quorum fidem chirographum meum subscripsi, die ..................... mensis .....................

Testis chirographi praedicti Dni Episcopi,