Editing Matthew Parker (section)

===Dispute about the validity of his consecration in 1559===
Parker's consecration gave rise to a dispute, which continues to this day, in regard to its sacramental validity from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. This eventually led to the condemnation of Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void" by a [[Apostolicae Curae|papal commission]] in 1896. The commission could not dispute that a consecration had taken place which met all the legal and [[liturgical]] requirement or deny that a "manual" succession, that is, the consecration by the laying on of hands and prayer had taken place. Rather the Pope asserted in the condemnation that the "defect of form and intent" rendered the rite insufficient to make a bishop in the apostolic succession (according to the Roman Catholic understanding of the minima for validity).{{sfn|O'Riordan|1913|pp=644{{ndash}}645}} Specifically the English rite was considered to be defective in "form", i.e. in the words of the rite which did not mention the "intention" to create a sacrificing bishop considered to be a priest in a higher degree, and the absence of a certain "matter" such as the handing of a chalice and paten to symbolise the power to offer sacrifice.{{refn|1=This is summed up as what effects a sacrament is the intention of administering that sacrament and the rite used according to that intention.{{sfn|O'Riordan|1913|pp=644{{ndash}}645}}|group=note}}

The Church of England archbishops of Canterbury and York rejected the pontiff's arguments in ''Saepius Officio'' in 1897.{{sfn|Temple|Maclagan|1897}} This rebuttal was written to demonstrate the sufficiency of the form and intention used in the Anglican Ordinal: the archbishops wrote that in the preface to the Ordinal the intention clearly is stated to continue the existing holy orders as received. They stated that even if Parker's consecrators had private doubts or lacked intention to do what the rites of ordination clearly stated, it counted for nought, since the words and actions of a rite (the formularies) performed on behalf of the church by the ministers of the sacrament, and not the opinions, however erroneous or correct, or inner states of mind or moral condition of the actors who carry them out, are the sole determinants. This view is also held by the Roman Catholic Church (and others) with few exceptions since the 3rd century.

Likewise, according to the archbishops, the required references to the sacrificial priesthood never existed in any ancient Catholic ordination liturgies prior to the 9th century nor in certain current [[Eastern Catholic Churches|Eastern-rite]] ordination liturgies that the Roman Catholic Church considers valid nor in Orthodoxy. Also, the archbishops argued that a particular formula in this respect as a ''sine qua non'' made no difference to the substance or validity of the act since the only two components that all ordination rites had in common were prayer and the laying on of hands and, in this regard, the words in the Anglican rite itself gave sufficient evidence as to the intent of the participants as stated in the preface, words and action of the rite. They pointed out that the only fixed and sure sacramental formulary is the baptismal rite.<ref>''Saepius Officio'', IX; arguments based on Saepius Officio reviewed by The Reverend William J. Alberts, The Validity of Anglican Orders, National Guild of Churchmen, Holy Cross Magazine, West Park, NY</ref> They argued that it was not necessary to consecrate a bishop as a "sacrificing priest" since he already was one by virtue of being a priest, except in ordinations ''per saltim'', i.e. from deacon to bishop when the person was made priest and bishop at once, a practice discontinued and forbidden.<ref>''Saepius Officio'', XIII.</ref> They also pointed out that none of the priests ordained with the English Ordinal were re-ordained as a requirement by Queen Mary - some did so voluntarily and some were re-anointed, a practice common at the time.<ref>''Saepius Officio'', VI.</ref> On the contrary, the Queen, unhappy about married clergy, ordered all of them, estimated at 15% of the total at the beginning of her reign in 1553, to put their wives away.{{sfn|Haigh|1991|pp=226{{ndash}}227}}

Parker was ordained in 1527 in the Latin Rite and before the break with Rome. As such according to this rite he was a "sacrificing priest" to which nothing more could be added by being consecrated a bishop. The orders of the [[Church of Ireland]] were also condemned as part of the wider denunciation of Anglican orders. The Popes at the time did not object to the Edwardine Ordinal but regarded those done from 1534 to 1553 as valid but illicit since they had not given permission for them.

In regard to the legal and canonical requirements, the government was at pains to see all were met for the consecration. None of the 18 Marian bishops would agree to consecrate Parker. Not only were they opposed to the changes the bishops had been excluded from decision-making regarding changes in liturgy, doctrine and the Royal Supremacy. The Commons approved the changes and the Lords 21-18 approved after pressure was brought to bear on them; concessions were made in a more Catholic tone in eucharistic doctrine, and allowance made for the use of Mass vestments and other traditional clerical dress in use in the second year of the reign of Edward VI, i.e. January 1548 to 49, when the Latin Rite was still the legal form of worship (the 'Ornaments Rubric' in the 1559 Prayer Book seems to refer to the allowance as set forth in the 1549 BCP).{{sfn|Moorman|1983|p=61}}{{sfn|MacCullough|1990|p=26}}{{sfn|Haigh|1991|pp=240{{ndash}}242}}

The government recruited four bishops who had been retired by Queen Mary or gone into exile. Two of the four, [[William Barlow (bishop of Chichester)|William Barlow]] and John Hodgkins had in Rome's view valid orders, since, having been made bishops in 1536 and 1537 with the Roman Pontifical in the Latin Rite, their consecrations met the criteria according to the definition stated in ''Apostolicae Curae''. John Scory and Miles Coverdale, the other two consecrators, were consecrated with the English Ordinal of 1550 on the same day in 1551 by Cranmer, Hodgkins and Ridley who were consecrated with the Latin Rite in 1532, 1537 and 1547 respectively. This ordinal was considered defective in form and intention. All four of Parker's consecrators were consecrated by bishops who themselves had been consecrated with the Roman Pontifical in the Church of England which at the time was in schism from Rome. Even though two of the consecrators had orders recognised as validity by Rome the consecration was considered to be "null and void" by Rome because the ordinal used was judged to be defective in matter, form and intention.

In the first year of his archiepiscopate, Parker participated in the consecration of 11 new bishops and confirmed two who had been ordained in previous reigns.