THE POPE'S ENCYCLICAL.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In your interesting and acute article on the Pope's last Encyclical, in the Spectator of July 4th, I find a state- ment of what the writer supposes to be the Pope's teaching concerning Anglican orders, which I take the liberty of pointing out to you as erroneous. You say : "Anglican orders again ! Only Bishops can confer orders, and Bishops cease to be Bishops if they are not obedient to the Pope." This is a total mistake, and an unfounded one. The character of orders, whether episcopal or priestly, is in the teaching of the Church indelible. And by ceasing to be in communion with Rome Bishops do not cease to be Bishops, nor do their ordinations lose validity. One would have thought that at this time of day any writer on this subject would have been familiar with the so obvious and palpable distinction between " orders " and "jurisdiction." What the Pope says is what all (each fiihige)experts say,—that orders may be ever so valid outside the pale of the Roman Catholic Church, but that the lawful exercise of the power of orders is restricted by juris- diction to certain places and persons only.
The parallel of Army, or other official, rank is evident. A man may be a Colonel, a General, or a Field-Marshal in the Army by the Queen's commission, but that he commands, or does not command, this or that regiment, brigade, division, or army corps, depends on the jurisdiction which is given (or withheld) by the competent authority. As a matter of fact, the Encyclical does not address itself to the question of Anglican orders. But if it did, it would certainly not declare, their intrinlic validity, or want of validity, to be dependent, on jurisdiction.—I am, Sir, &c., NEMO.
Previous page
