(c) Joseph Oliveri
Click here to return to the Accipe Potestatem homepage.
(c) Joseph Oliveri
Click here to return to the Accipe Potestatem homepage.
APOSTOLICAE CURAE
and the
'SPIRIT' of ST. LOUIS
The origin of the Church is not the decision of men; she is not the product of human willing but a creature of the Spirit of God. This Spirit overcomes the Babylonian world spirit. Man's will to power, symbolized in Babel, aims at the goal of uniformity, because its interest is domination and subjection; it is precisely in this way that it brings forth hatred and division. God's Spirit, on the other hand, is love; for this reason He brings about recognition and creates unity in the acceptance of the otherness of the other: the many languages are mutually comprehensible.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion (Ignatius), p. 43
Within the sphere of ecumenical dialogue, it is nearly axiomatic that agreements based upon the minimal points of commonality will only lead to further division. Similarly, any new ecumenical context which eschews definitions in a weak attempt to absorb incompatible concepts is a will-o-wisp -- a dangerous illusion.
Yet precisely such an illusion has for the most part been the starting point for dialogue between Canterbury and Rome ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). In relatively short order, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) gave us "Agreed Statements" on the Eucharist (Windsor, 1971); Ministry (Canterbury, 1973); and Authority (Venice, 1976) -- none of which were possible to recognise as true consensus because the respective Anglican and Roman Catholic positions were innaccurately portrayed. Indeed, on those very doctrinal points where absolute clarity would have been in order, the ARCIC Agreed Statements are quite vague1. As Michael Davies has noted in a particularly withering critique of the Agreement on Ministry, "Catholic teaching is not affirmed in this Statement in a single instance where Catholics and Protestants have differed on the nature of the priesthood. On every critical issue the Catholic position is either passed over in silence or the Protestant position is affirmed."2 Davies is here referring to the Statement's failure to affirm the absolute necessity within the Church, not merely of oversight, but of bishops in Apostolic Succession; that ordination imparts grace and power upon the ordinand which he did not have before; that Priests alone are able to confect the Eucharist and celebrate Mass; that Priests possess the juridical power of granting or withholding sacramental absolution; and so on.
Without imputing the good intentions of the delegates, it would seem fair to say that the ARCIC has undermined the faith of traditional Roman Catholics and Anglicans alike as it militated against history and tradition while seeking unity in ambiguity. No Roman Catholic should have been surprised, therefore, when in 1982 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith paused over the ARCIC Final Report, noting several dubious points in the Report which begged clarification. Even so, the ARCIC was quite unprepared for such a cool reception of their work; and its agitated riposte was that the SCDF objections to the Final Report did not constitute Rome's "final verdict." Rather predictably, however, when the Holy See rendered that final verdict on the Final Report in 1991 -- echoing the SCDF objections -- the ARCIC was outraged and ignored it withal.
Paragraph 17 of the Statement on Ministry states matter-of-factly, "We are fully aware of the issues raised by the judgment of the Roman Catholic Church on Anglican Orders. The development of the thinking in our two Communions regarding the nature of the Church and of the Ordained Ministry, as represented in our Statement, has, we consider, put these issues in a new context." But is that breathtaking assumption indeed accurate? No "development" in Roman Catholic doctrine has obviated the absolute necessity of bishops in Apostolic Succession. At no point did the Second Vatican Council reduce the ordained minister to a liturgical functionary who simply "presides" at the Eucharist for reasons of order. No papal encyclical on the priesthood has denied that grace is conferred directly through ordination; or that a Priest does not differ substantially from a layman. Yet the Agreed Statement on Ministry does not demonstrate a newfound consensus on any such issues. What, then, is the "nature of the Church and of Ordained Ministry" represented in this Agreed Statement, which supposedly places Apostolicae Curae in a "new context"? The ARCIC has no clear answer.
We may wonder if in its zeal the ARCIC didn't misinterpret those sentiments expressed by Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Pope Paul VI in their Joint Declaration on Cooperation (1966), where it was said we ought "to leave in the hands of the God of mercy all that in the past has been opposed to this precept of charity." Perhaps the ARCIC has mistaken legitimate theological disputes in themselves as opposed to charity; as if such disputes were morally tantamount to bigotry simply because they would frustrate ecumenical progress. Yet choosing to ignore important theological controversies is a far cry from settling them. Unless we are willing to believe that devout Christians as disparate as Cranmer and Campion went to their deaths over simple "misunderstandings" which we -- enlightened moderns that we are -- can easily resolve with a sort of historical amnesia supported by nuanced accords, then we must concede that the ARCIC has been a regrettable failure from the very first.
It would be wrong to blame the ARCIC entirely for this failure, however; to an extent, all of us who pray for reconciliation between Anglicans and the Holy See are to blame. Is it not true that ours is an age which prefers amity to honesty and appearances to reality? Perhaps this is why the bulk of Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue since the Council has amounted to so much straw.
With the novel imposition of "priested" women in the U.S. Episcopal Church (1976) and now in the Church of England herself (1992), the "official" dialogue between Canterbury and Rome may finally be consigned to the trash bin of ecumenical vaguery. This observation may appear harsh, but it is nonetheless true for all that. All the post-conciliar bonhomie and Agreed Statements in the world cannot alter the fact that the ARCIC has now become that very thing it would have us label history: irrelevant. And with regard to the subject of Anglican Holy Orders in particular, in 1996 (i.e., the centenary of Apostolicae Curae) no less a progressive than Fr. Edward Yarnold, S.J., was forced to admit: "I regret to have to conclude that the 'new context' in which Anglican Orders should be judged is not in every respect more favorable than the setting a hundred, or even nine years ago"3.
Note the operative word, "judged;" it is an indication of the misguided approach to Anglican Orders in our day which unfortunately is the rule -- even among progressive Catholics, evidently! But we will return to this theme a little further on.
So far from being bad news, the essential breakdown of the ARCIC represents a welcome development in the interest of genuine dialogue. First of all, for far too long the Roman Church has labored under the misapprehension that the Primatial See in England speaks authoritatively (in one way or another) for all Anglicans; hence the quasi-official tendency to conduct all dialogue through Canterbury, often to the detriment of other Anglican churches and jurisdictions. (Consider for a moment the amusingly relevant fact that there are now arguably more orthodox Anglicans to be found in Africa than in England.) Moreover, by dealing primarily with the Church of England, we Romans have demonstrated a clear (albeit historically understandable) ignorance of Anglican ecclesiastical polity in mistaking the Archbishop of Canterbury for an "Anglican pope."
To whom, then, should Rome now turn in seeking to begin constructive dialogue with traditional Anglicans? In a manner of speaking, the answer to this question is our "new context." But before we examine any new context in which Anglican Holy Orders ought to be discussed, it might prove worthwhile taking a few moments to re-examine the old context. Indeed, the juxtaposition of what Apostolicae Curae was meant to convey within its historical setting (outside of which this Letter is altogether impossible to properly understand), with the objective status of such a document today will clearly demonstrate the awkwardness of an outdated paradigm -- and the need for a new paradigm which speaks to the realities of the present day.
What is essential for constructive dialogue now is not some uncritical, revisionistic outlook which seeks to explain away or bury history in wispy concordats (as the ARCIC would have done), but a paradigm which both respects history while recognising the contemporary realities that make up the new context, and which offers a new approach to the controversy by capitalising upon opportunities that until recently were unavailable.
Above all, we must always remember our obligation to truth. As Pope John Paul II cautions in Ut Unum Sint (1995), his encyclical letter on ecumenism:
The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?... A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.4
The goal is to carefully move forward. But as Catholics, in communion not only throughout the world but mystically across time, we first look back to properly understand where we are going.
The "Old Context"
Can it be denied that the spiritual authority of the Holy See, entrusted to it for the edification of of the Church, has sometimes exposed itself to the charge of being more anxious about the means by which it believed that authority was to be maintained, than about the ends for which it was instituted?... Ignorance, misunderstanding, and prejudice are the real obstacles to reunion, and they exist on one side as much as on the other. How much indeed we have all to learn! How far we all fall short of the standard of that charity which hopeth all things, believeth all things, seeketh not her own, vaunteth not herself! What a need there is patience on all sides!
- Viscount Halifax, Leo XIII and Anglican Orders (Longmans, Green and Co.), pp. 414, 417
From the plain wording of Apostolicae Curae, it is manifestly clear that Pope Leo XIII was addressing the Church of England proper, and treating of the controversy surrounding the validity of her Orders in light of events and circumstances -- some certain, others doubtful -- which had not changed significantly since either the Reformation in England, on one hand, or since the restoration of Prayer Book worship under Charles II on the other.
In retrospect one might observe that the timing of this controversy's re-evaluation at the end of the 19th century was less than fortuitous. There were not a few interested parties in England, as well as in Rome, who had witnessed the (re)establishment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy on English soil -- and who had perhaps experienced first hand the bitter civil unrest that followed. Meanwhile, alarm in the Church of England over what was seen as the growth of crypto-papistical "ritualism" had led to a sad legacy of great churchmen being dragged before the Privy Council for such offenses as using an altar cross or liturgical vestments5.
One can also appreciate the fact that the First Vatican Council (1869-70) and its Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus -- which defined the scope of papal infallibility -- had not exactly been a positive boon to an already tense Anglican-Roman Catholic relationship.
Memories of such disturbing times and events were no doubt still easily recalled by much of the Roman clergy in England; and so their contumacy and evident bitterness in the Holy Orders debate may be understandable, if unreasonable in its degree. We should not imagine that Rome had many friends in the Church of England, either; for his part, treating of the Roman Church, not even the most fervently ritualistic member of the High Church party could bring himself to nod approvingly at the "papists."
Given the temperment of the times, then, one might justifiably remark that, save for a scattering of French Benedictines and characteristically sanguine Englishmen, no one could have realistically expected Pope Leo to pronounce in favor of the validity of Anglican Holy Orders, even while such a determination was altogether unsolicited by the Church of England herself and would have been acrimoniously unwelcomed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England. There was, lamentibile dictu, little hope for patient discussion of Anglican Holy Orders within such an historical setting.
Having recognized the historical setting in which Pope Leo wrote Apostolicae Curae, it would nevertheless be innaccurate to conclude that Leo's decision was unduly influenced by mere socio-political (or curial) forces. Let us abandon so facile an argument to the ARCIC, where it has enjoyed currency for nearly thirty years. If we would discuss the Roman Church's position in the Anglican Holy Orders controversy not as polemicists, but constructively as brothers, we must first try to understand it; and if we would understand it, we must soberly confront the important theological principles involved.
But what are these important theological principles? An excellent rule of thumb here would be to address whatever the ARCIC Agreed Statement on Ministry ignored. There are chiefly three things we would need to consider in understanding Apostolice Curae. One of the first principles we would have to consider is a belief in the sacerdotium -- a visible, sacrificing priesthood quite distinct from the royal priesthood common to all Christians, instituted by Our Lord for the perpetual sanctification of His Church through the re-presenting of His Holy Sacrifice once offered on Calvary6. The absolute necessity of Bishops (episkopoi) in Apostolic Succession, who alone are charged with pastoral oversight (episkope) and have the power to ordain, would be another important principle7. The third principle would treat of those things which are required for the valid conferral of Holy Order, according to the Schoolmen.
Keeping these three principles in mind, let us now see if we cannot follow Pope Leo's train of thought in Apostolicae Curae. Leo's pronouncement was that Holy Orders conferred according to the Edwardine Ordinal in the Church of England had been, and were -- in that immortally (in)famous phrase -- "absolutely null and utterly void" due to defects of Form and ministerial Intention. Briefly summarized, it was said that those prayers in the Ordinal which could have been taken as a perfectly valid sacramental Form were, so to speak, emptied of Catholic significance owing to the unique historical circumstances surrounding the Ordinal's composition; and the deliberate use of an Ordinal over and against the recognized Pontificals would have also constituted an externally visible manifestation in those circumstances of what is called a "positive contrary intention," operative in the mind of the Minister (i.e., the Bishop) at the very moment of ordination, which cancels out the "general intention" of doing what the Church does (intentio generalis faciendi quod facit ecclesia) when she confers Holy Orders.
Now, first of all, it is critical that we remember what terms like "Form" and "Intention" mean to Roman Catholic theologians, because Roman Catholics and Anglicans do not always use these terms with the exact same meaning.
The Thomistic approach to the Sacraments sees four things as required for validity8:
1.) Proper "Matter" -- the visible aspect or elementum materiale of the sacramental sign; often of indeterminate signification in itself (e.g. imposition of hands);
2.) Proper "Form" -- a prayer or formula verborum which, together with the elementum materiale and determining the same, consitutes the parts of a Sacrament of the New Law. The Form of a Sacrament is either (a) instituted in specie by Christ (as in Baptism and the Holy Eucharist), or (b) otherwise recognized by the Catholic Church where it pleased Our Lord to institute a Sacrament in genere (as in Holy Orders);
3.) A proper "Minister" of the Sacrament in question; and
4.) Proper ministerial "Intention" -- which is to say an actual (or at least virtual) intention "to do what the Church does" (facere quod facit ecclesia) when she confers or confects a given Sacrament.
Does Apostolicae Curae really oblige a Roman Catholic to maintain, then, that the Edwardine Ordinal contains forms for the conferral of Holy Order which are in themselves defective or invalid? Not at all. Must a Roman Catholic ignore, or worse, quibble over those forms which we find in ancient records like the Apostolic Constitutions and the Gelasian Sacramentary? Certainly not. Here then is the key to understanding Leo's objection to the Edwardine Ordinal: to wit, the Ordinal was composed by Reformers who openly rejected the Catholic doctrine of the sacerdotium -- and it was used over and against the Catholic Pontificals then in existence, which were in turn utterly suppressed. Moreover, it was no secret that the Ordinal drew substantially from a Continental Protestant model supplied by the Lutheran divine, Martin Bucer9. In the immediate circumstances of the English Reformation, therefore, the purposed excising of any reference to priesthood, sacrifice and oblation from the Ordinal assigned to it a "native character and spirit" (nativa indoles ac spiritus) which Rome could only interpret as anti-Catholic. As the Church of England would then persevere in her Reformed doctrines, and indeed would suppress the liturgical expressions of her more Catholic-minded priests even up to the pontificate of Leo XIII himself, the latter would have had no ground whatsoever to suddenly overturn the consistent practice of the Roman Church and acknowledge the objective validity of the Edwardine Ordinal.
Forcefully and forthrightly do Anglo-Catholics defend the Ordinal and the Catholicity of its rites. But traditional Roman Catholics would have no quarrel with Anglo-Catholics if the reformed Anglican Ordinal had not displaced an explicitly sacerdotal one. Anglo-Catholic belief in a ministerial Priesthood and a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is known well enough. Let no Roman Catholic be so callow at this date as to doubt how much we hold in common with our Anglo-Catholic brethren. Again, no one should be arguing that the Edwardine Ordinal in itself cannot be used in a Catholic sense to validly confer Holy Order. It was the "native character and spirit," rather -- an anti-sacerdotal imprint which was worked de industria into the Ordinal's original composition10 -- which condemned the Ordinal in Rome's eyes, so that even a Roman Catholic bishop with the proper ministerial intention could not use the Ordinal validly.
But let us respectfully inquire further: what is this defective character and spirit native to, exactly? Strictly speaking we cannot simply answer, "the Ordinal in toto," because we know perfectly well that those sacramental forms found in the Edwardine Ordinal are per se valid. By definition, a sacramental form cannot be assigned a native character and spirit which relies upon outside circumstances, because if something is native to its subject it inheres in it always and everywhere. What we are left with, therefore, is a twofold liturgical and historical setting in which the Edwardine forms appear.
Now, what happens to this native character and spirit if the Edwardine prayers are changed -- if, say, they are enriched with Catholic ceremonial? or if they are placed within a completely different historical setting? One of Rome's foremost authorities on Apostolicae Curae and Holy Orders in general, Dr. Francis Clark, S.J., has already answered the question for us:
The sacramental signification of an ordination rite is not necessarily limited to one phrase or formula, but can be clearly conveyed from many different parts of the rite. These other parts could thus contribute, either individually or in combination, to determining the sacramental meaning of the operative formula in an unambiguous sense. Thus the wording of an ordination form, even if not specifically determinate in itself, can be given the required determination from its setting (ex adiunctis), that is, from the other prayers and actions of the rite, or even from the connotation of the ceremony as a whole in the religious context of the age.11
Lest we are accused of quoting Fr. Clark out of context, be it noted he was speaking here in defense of the revised Roman Pontifical. As a theologian Fr. Clark has always expertly defended Apostolicae Curae to the hilt -- although his remarks above have obvious (if unintended) implications for Anglo-Catholics in the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions.
These are some points to ponder as we move on to Pope Leo's faulting of Anglican ministerial intention.
Anglicans are often surprised to hear that the defect of ministerial intention which nullified12 Anglican Holy Orders from Rome's point of view has virtually nothing to do with Anglican ordinations that take place today (or that took place a hundred years ago, for that matter). Accurately understood, a defect in ministerial intention can only be determined on a case by case basis. It would be absurd, in addition to being incorrect and irresponsible, for anyone to claim that all Anglican priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations are the occasion of a defective ministerial intention. If anything, from the writings of many Anglican divines themselves we have every good reason to believe precisely the opposite is true (and likely has been the case since at least the mid-19th century).
So what do we mean when we indicate a defective ministerial intention? Let us first recognize some of the more common misconceptions. A defect in ministerial intention is not predetermined because the minister is a known heretic. Someone who administers or confers a Sacrament haphazardly is not de facto said to have had a defective ministerial intention. And (pace those who have recourse to Saepius Officio) a defective ministerial intention can neither be determined from, nor validated by what some theologians call the "external intention" of a given rite -- i.e., by the stated purpose of a rite.
In broadest terms, this is the Roman Church's understanding of ministerial intention: unless the Church has very serious and substantial reasons to conclude otherwise, the minister of a given Sacrament is presumed to have the requisite general intention of "doing what the Church does" (faciendi quod facit ecclesia), in obedience to Christ, when she (that is, the Church) confers or confects that Sacrament.
A general intention to do what the Church does is all that is required -- nothing more. A minister may deny the effects of a Sacrament; he may deny that the Roman Church is the true Church founded by Our Lord; indeed, he may even own that the pope is the antichrist himself, and Rome a dunghill of heresy. In the final analysis, errors and misconceptions habitually held in the mind of the minister of a Sacrament are of no moment whatsoever. What matters is that intention held by the minister during the actual administration of a Sacrament -- and again, as a rule, the general intention will suffice.
In some cases, however, this intentio generalis is held simultaneously in the mind of the minister alongside a positive contrary intention -- e.g., to not ordain sacrificing priests -- and as the contrary intention is positive, it overrides any generally held or virtual intention.
In Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII maintained that the Holy Orders of the Church of England were nullified due, in part, to a defect in ministerial intention; however, by this he did not mean a defect present in contemporary Anglican ordinations, but one which was manifest in the ordination of Matthew Parker, the source of episcopal lineage in the Church of England. By using the Edwardine Ordinal in that historical setting, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale and Hodgkin reliably manifested -- again, from Rome's point of view -- a positive contrary intention destructive of the Sacrament of Order, cancelling out their general intention to do what the Church does and thus invalidating Parker's consecration.
It is true enough that, in 1896, most Roman Catholic theologians (including Leo, of course) would in all likelihood be predisposed to discern a defective ministerial intention in the Anglican ordinations and consecrations of that time -- and not just those which took place 300 years earlier. But even then they would have been hard put. The Catholic Revival in the Church of England was well under way by that time (one might say it almost flourished under persecution); and Anglo-Catholics might turn to the works of Jewel, Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Pusey, Neale, Froude, and many others as august witnesses to a Reformed Catholicity which was distinctly, and triumphantly, Anglican. From church architecture to liturgical accoutrement, the influence of the Catholic Revival was far-reaching and could not be ignored.
Most significantly for the purposes of our study, a shift in Anglican theology of the Ministry towards a more sacerdotal character was clearly taking shape by the 1870's. For example, with regards to auricular confession -- a most controversial subject at the time -- Dr. Moorman notes that some Anglican clergy
[C]laimed (and with some justice) that the Book of Common Prayer clearly envisages the practice of confessions being heard in certain cases and invests the priest with the right to pronounce, or withhold, absolution. The custom, therefore, grew in spite of opposition; and in 1877 a handbook for confessors, called The Priest in Absolution, was privately printed and widely circulated. Some years before this a book called The Priest's Prayer Book, with a Brief Pontifical had been published containing the Hour Services, Prayers while vesting, Secreta for use in the Holy Communion, and offices for the blessing of candles, ashes, and palms, for washing the altar, and for the consecration of holy oil. The popularity of this book shows how widespread was the demand for forms of service which a previous generation would have shuddered at.13
We must resist the temptation to over-generalise, of course; such a danger is particularly acute in a brief overview such as the one before the reader. It is possible to paint a rosy scene of Anglo-Catholicism as it was actually lived and celebrated in 1896. And say what we will, although Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics might have been able to reach profound agreement on critical points of doctrine even then, there yet persisted far too much "ignorance, misunderstanding, and prejudice" among us. The late 19th century was not due season -- as the pitiable figure of Lord Halifax would only too readily demonstrate.
We have considered the historical setting and theological arguments of the "Old Context." Now it is time to bring ourselves back up-to-date, and see what -- and how much -- has truly changed.
The "New" Context
The time has surely come when the Vatican ought to be dealing ecumenically not with the Anglican Communion as a whole (as though it were what it is not), but with individual provinces or even parts of provinces.
- The Rev. Geoffrey Kirk (The Messenger, June 2000, p. 12)
More than a century has elapsed since Apostolicae Curae was promulgated. The intervening years have been witness to an explosion of biblical exegsis, historical research, theological scholarship, and ecumenical activity unimaginable before the First World War -- all of which has had a tremendous impact both upon liturgical development as well as upon our understanding of the ministerial priesthood. Most regrettably, however, the 20th century also saw the creeping advance of pernicious doctrines and heresies: rationalism; syncretism; spiritualism; esoteric "New Age" cults; and more recently, even "Wiccan" goddess-worship. Although perhaps the most notorious heresy to beset the Christian Faithful in the last century was modernism -- that "synthesis of all heresies"14 which upon reflection may have very well inspired more in way of ecclesiastical paranoia than sound catechetical defense.
Evidence would seem to suggest that, clergy and laity alike, most Roman Catholics were spiritually ill-prepared to address the modernist encroachment on liturgy, doctrine, art and architecture -- indeed upon the very cultural identity of Catholicism -- which before the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) had for the most part been limited to academic circles and scholarly journals, but which would be loosed upon the minds and souls of the Christian Faithful at large thanks to ponderously ambiguous conciliar documents. The results, as the saying goes, speak for themselves: a decimated priesthood; a precipitous drop in Mass attendance; hundreds of religious houses, seminaries, and churches closed; escalating reports of paedophilia and homosexuality among our clergy; a hopelessly "banal" (Card. Ratzinger's term) liturgy; thousands of nominally-Catholic politicians who support "abortion rights" and stem cell harvesting; and, if recent studies may be reliably credited, nearly 60% of Roman Catholic laypeople consider Our Lord to be only symbolically present in the Eucharist. One is often told that such a dismal picture is incomplete; that the Roman Church is in point of fact healthier than ever. It's a strange rationale, but hardly new; we should remember that at one time physicians believed letting half a patient's blood was the surest cure for any number of infirmities.
Nor should we imagine that the worldwide Anglican Communion emerged from the 20th century unbesmirched with the modernist taint. Particularly here in the United States, traditional Episcopalians -- Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals alike -- have suffered grieviously over the last forty years as they helplessly watched the modernist hand chip away at their spiritual home. Such is the current state of things in the U.S. Episcopal Church, that wayward bishops are not disciplined or called to order for even the most outrageous statements given publicly against the Faith; "active" homosexuals are accepted as candidates for ordination; traditional cures are openly persecuted by their Bishops, and are made to endure the very public indignity of legal process in the secular courts (often resulting in the forfeiture of church property); heterodoxy seems unchecked at any level; Prayer Book worship languishes; and the Presiding Bishop appears to have contracted a frighteningly resistant form of insouciance. One is sadly reminded of Thomas Arnold's heartwrenching observation in 1832: "When I think of the Church, I could sit down and pine and die."
Let us first state the obvious: the overall picture is grim indeed. The influence of modernism is inescapable in the Catholic Church today. But this picture is incomplete; for if we carefully look beyond the surface, in the background we will find there in high relief new possibilities for reconciliation between Anglican Catholics and the Holy See. We realize that perhaps Apostolicae Curae has obscured a part of the Master's original work -- like the conspicuous afterthought of a devoted, but less genuine, student; that, in the original picture, Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics have always been in communion to a remarkable degree. What remains now is the task of restoring the Master's original design so that this communion is once again visible, as it was always meant to be, so that Catholics may be truly united in confronting a thoroughly modernistic culture. And as the most powerful weapon at a Christian's disposal is prayer, so must we be united in prayer -- united, indeed, in that greatest Prayer of all, the Holy Mass.
Consider how imperative it is that Anglican Catholics and Roman Catholics speak with one voice, as an earthly echo of the celestial refrain: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus. Unless we recognise a ministerial priesthood held by us both; a common Sacrifice of the altar; and the same Priest and Victim who both offers, and is, that Sacrifice; then all manner of supposed "agreement" and unity beyond these are for naught.15
We are not speaking here of that corporate or organisational unity which is, when properly realised, the result of a more profound communion. It is the more profound communion we speak of -- not merely the outward appearance of communion, which can be misleading.
Now, Anglican Catholics have always recognised16 the priesthood and Sacraments of the Roman Church, of course; it is the reverse relationship which must be repaired. But how can this be done? Previous attempts at repairing this division, this wound in the Mystical Body of Christ, have failed -- as we have seen with the ARCIC. So we come back to that question posed earlier: To whom should Rome now turn in seeking to begin constructive dialogue with traditional Anglicans?
By now the answer ought to be altogether obvious. Rome should turn to the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions -- to the Traditional Anglican Communion and those Anglican Churches which are guided by the 1977 Affirmation of St. Louis. The Continuing Anglican jurisdictions are the collective framework within which the "new context" of Apostolicae Curae takes shape.17
Recall those three elements which we noted as key to understanding the Roman Catholic Church's position in Apostolicae Curae: (1.) a belief in the sacerdotium, or ministerial priesthood; (2.) the historic episcopacy in Apostolic Succession; and (3.) those things which are required for the valid conferral of Holy Orders according to the Schoolmen (viz., proper matter; form; intention; and minister).
It is not so difficult to imagine that Anglican Catholics and Roman Catholics might actually be able to formalise our agreement in these matters -- as well as overcome any disagreement -- now that Continuing Anglican Churches may deal with the Holy See directly and quite apart from a moribund Anglican "Communion" which includes priestesses and bishopesses (among other anomolies). We see, for example, that the Affirmation of St. Louis explicitly refers to the seven Sacraments as such, noting only that "in particular, we affirm the necessity of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist (where they may be had): Baptism as incorporating us into Christ (with its completion in Confirmation as the 'seal of the Holy Spirit'), and the Eucharist as the sacrifice which unites us to the all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and the Sacrament in which He feeds us with His Body and Blood" (Art. 2). This quite effectively quashes Roman Catholic concern over the Anglican "demotion" of Holy Orders from being a proper Sacrament, which we have always understood to be the clear sense of Article XXV of the XXXIX Articles of Religion. Indeed, the Articles of Religion themselves do not seem to play quite the divisively prominent role they once did. While cleaving to basic principles of the English Reformation, many Anglican Catholics would seem prepared to acknowledge that the Articles are part of an historical document to which no more than general assent can be given -- at most18. This development is most encouraging for obvious reasons.
In its reverence and ceremonial, Anglican Catholic worship is not only remarkably in accord with the traditional Roman liturgy -- but its lines clearly surpass in excellence the impoverished "modern" Roman rite as well! Particularly, we note here the clearly defined, traditional roles of priest and laity in the Anglican Catholic Mass, and above all its Christ-centeredness. The priest is properly vested and truly comports himself as an alter Christus; the "Lord's Table" is altar-wise, ad orientem; the tabernacle is centrally placed, upon the altar, beneath a traditional or iconic crucifix; the faithful communicate kneeling at the rail, while the air is suffused with hymns, incense, and reverence. We Romans used to be familiar with such cosmic drama; but with the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI in 197019 we became preoccupied with novelty and ad experimentum liturgy -- and now our public worship is the worse for it. No less than the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has admitted this. So may we.
Lex supplicandi legem credendi statuat: "Let the law of prayer fix the law of belief." If there is any truth to this dictum, then in all fairness no Roman Catholic in this day and age can afford to be so presumptuous as to scrutinise the belief of Anglican Catholics with regard to the Sacred Priesthood or the Real Objective Presence of Christ in the Eucharist20. But if Rome would know what the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions believe in these matters, she need look no further than the typical Continuing Anglican liturgy.
And what does a Continuing Anglican ordination to the Sacred Priesthood look like? This is an excellent question, because the answer really goes to the heart of Apostolicae Curae itself. As we will examine the Anglican rite in detail later on in Part II of this essay, for now it should suffice to mention what is without question the most startling feature of an Anglican Catholic priestly ordination: namely, the porrectio instrumentorum, or "tradition of the instruments." In this ceremony, the Bishop presents the newly-ordained priest with a chalice containing a small amount of wine and water, and a paten, while charging him thus:
Take thou the authority to offer sacrifice to God, and celebrate Mass both for the living and the dead. In the Name of Our Lord. Amen.21
This little ceremony, while never having properly belonged to the sacramental Form of Holy Orders in the Catholic Church (and which was not recorded before the 10th century), nevertheless has always been deemed so significant that if, for any reason, it had been omitted from an ordination, the ordination was to be reiterated sub conditione (i.e., conditionally) and the porrectio observed. The reason for this gravity is that the porrectio instrumentorum has always represented an unambiguous affirmation of a ministerial priesthood -- i.e., the sacerdotium. This is why Cranmer detested it so, and why he tampered with the ceremony in the 1550 Ordinal and replaced it altogether (with the tradition of the Holy Bible) in 1552.
Quoting the 23rd Session of the Holy Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae refers to the "grace and power" of the sacerdotium, "which is chiefly the power 'of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord'". As every trace of a sacrificing priesthood had (from our point of view) been expunged from the Edwardine Ordinal, Leo interpreted this as satisfactory evidence of its anti-sacerdotal "native character and spirit."
The fact that the Continuing Anglican Churches have restored the porrectio instrumentorum speaks volumes. We could scarcely ask for a more profound bona fide testimony to their belief in a Sacred Priesthood as the Catholic Church has always understood it to be. Concerns over "High" and "Low" churchmanship effectively end precisely here -- because if agreement can be found on this central issue, on the reality of the sacerdotium, then whether or not a given Anglican jurisdiction prefers the Missal or is "allergic" to incense becomes quite irrelevant.
The anemic state of our "reformed" liturgical books in the Roman Church only serves to magnify the significance of this restoration. In the 1968 Pontificale Romanum, the prayer which accompanies the porrectio has become the following:
Accept the gift of the people to be offered to God. Realise what you are about; be as holy as your ministry; model your life on the mystery of the Cross of our Lord.
Further comment at this point seems unnecessary.
Conclusion: The "New Approach"
So far we have demonstrated -- beyond reasonable doubt, one would hope -- that formalised agreement between the Continuing Churches and the Holy See on the nature of the Sacred Priesthood and Real Objective Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is quite possible. It should also be clear that the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) should not be considered the best venue for serious discussions.
The question now becomes: where do we go from here? Even if Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics were to reach solid doctrinal consensus on these matters, given the historical background of the controversy wouldn't formal recognition of Anglican Holy Orders by Rome require compromise, or some kind of voiding of Apostolicae Curae?
If we are serious about reconciliation and are interested in pursuing realistic prospects for ecumenical progress, then we must resign ourselves to the simple fact that a "reversal" of Apostolicae Curae is unfortunately out of the question. Likewise, it would be foolhardy for Rome to ask Anglican Catholics to admit that their Orders are only dubiously valid, and so confirm Pope Leo's decision more than one hundred years after-the-fact. The ideal solution, then, would be one where each party is free to maintain their view on the historical controversy while at the same time taking concrete steps to bring this division to a close once and for all. In short, we begin by acknowledging the impasse -- not by ignoring it.
Is a solution under these circumstances even possible? There may be one way -- a solution which would demand patience, but which would be effective.
Once formal agreement on the doctrinal points we have been discussing has been achieved, and the Anglican Catholic Ordinal has been received as perfectly valid by Rome, there would in theory be no serious obstacle to establishing a canonical solution whereby Rome may in time recognize the Holy Orders of a given Continuing Anglican jurisdiction. Roman Catholic bishops could, for example, receive special delegation from the Holy See to participate in Continuing Church episcopal consecrations. It would not even be necessary for the Roman Catholic bishop to be the "primary" consecrator, since (as is generally known) all three bishops are equally considered co-consecrators, both in Roman Catholic and Anglican theology of the Sacrament. It would also be possible, in such cases where Anglican bishops may be found willing, to conditionally (sub conditione) ordain an Anglican bishop and then consecrate him -- according to the newly-recognized Anglican rite -- a bishop, granting him a titular Roman diocese and episcopal jurisdiction not limited to a specific diocese or geographical area (similar to prelates nullius and those who oversee a personal prelature).
And let us not forget: Rome has already implemented a "Pastoral Provision" for Anglican Use Catholics in the United States. Former U.S. Episcopal clergy and laymen may now worship God in the best Prayer Book tradition while being in full visible communion with Rome. No longer are Anglicans required to abandon their liturgical patrimony if they wish to reconcile with the Holy See. So, we may ask: What role would Anglican Use clergy play in a proposed solution to the Anglican Orders controversy? This much is certain: they would not be idle. Ever since the Pastoral Provision was established in the early 1980's, Anglican Use Catholics have humbly (and informally) petitioned Rome for a bishop "of their own," so to speak. What better opportunity to create such a bishop than a situation where someone is needed both to oversee the Anglican Use congregations (as, e.g., a personal prelature) and to participate in Continuing Anglican consecrations and priestly ordinations?
Measures such as proposed above would allow Rome to openly put the validity of such consecrations beyond all doubt. In turn, all priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations at which these bishops would be co-consecrators would then also be acknowledged by Rome as well.
Regular meetings between Roman Catholic and Continuing Church representatives would conceivably both track the progress of this pastoral solution, as well as work towards that corporate reconciliation for which we all should continue to pray. There is of course no question that a solution like this would demand patience as well as labor -- not to mention a willingness to take steps towards unity which frankly would have been impractical in Pope Leo's day.
While this pastoral solution to the Holy Orders controversy may appear similar to measures that were taken between the Church of England and the Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches early in the 20th century, the historical realities place those measures and our own in completely different contexts. For one thing, we might recall that while some Anglicans were willing to admit a ministerial priesthood and a Sacrifice of the Mass, an even greater number were willing to make no such concession under any circumstances. This would have lead to Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops consecrating Anglican bishops who in some cases were more Protestant than Catholic. Moreover, at that time the Articles of Religion were still an albatross around the neck of Anglican Catholics -- a daunting problem which in itself admitted few convincing solutions. And, lastly, the solution we propose would not be an isolated event, but a programme carefully implemented over a number of years by the end of which all clergy in a given Anglican jurisdiction could trace their "lineage" back to both (1.) a bishop recognized by the Holy See and (2.) a rite similarly recognized.
As long as we're speaking of "The Dutch Touch," we should point out that from Rome's perspective, the Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox participation in Anglican episcopal consecrations was only moderately successful in solving the wider problem because it was for the most part severly limited. Generally speaking, this is why those Anglican priests who "cross the Tiber" these days receive sub conditione ordination in most cases if they can trace their bishop's succession back to Old Catholic or Eastern Orthodox lines. But none are accepted qua priests.
In any case, the time has come when Catholics might begin to seriously discuss such ideas as the ones we've mentioned above. We know from recent historical events (e.g., the ongoing talks between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X, and the unique canonical arrangement Rome has granted to the traditionalists in Campos, Brazil) that the Pope recognizes this, and that where unity may be pursued through canonical means it will be pursued. Not everyone in the Curia supports John Paul II, of course; and many bishops are perfectly satisfied with a status quo where Anglicans are to be welcomed with open arms on the condition they admit their entire liturgical patrimony since the Reformation has been at best an empty pantomine. By the same token, we must also recognize the fact that not every Anglican Catholic bishop supports the notion of rapprochement with the "papists." Times may have changed since 1896, but men have not; and Catholics on both sides are just as likely to encounter resistance on the path towards unity from within their communion as they might expect from without. Therefore, as sheep among wolves, those interested in unity must be "wise as serpents" (cf. Matt 10:16) and move forward confidently -- but not rashly.
Perhaps it is due season for Anglican Catholics and Roman Catholics to finally consign our pointless divisions to the past. Let us now, in the words of the Joint Declaration, "leave in the hands of the God of mercy all that in the past has been opposed to this precept of charity" -- but let us also ackowledge our very real failings, ignorance, and sins which have needlessly perpetuated division where true concord may be achieved.
Would that we were now like the two travellers upon the road to Emmaus who would tell the Apostles with boundless joy in their hearts that they had seen the Lord, and recognised Him "in the breaking of the bread":
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (Luke 24:36)
End Notes
1. The ARCIC Agreed Statements are now available online at:
http://user.fundy.net/msgr/ARCIC_MENU.htm.
2. Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech (Roman Catholic Books; Harrison, NY, 1993), p. 59
3. Anglican Orders: Essays on the Centenary of Apostolicae Curae 1896-1996 (Morehouse; Harrisburg, PA, 1996), p. 74
4. Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995), n. 18
5. John R. H. Moorman, A History of the Church in England (A. and C. Black; London, 1953), p. 369.
See also the moving "Sermon on the English Priests Imprisoned for Conscience Sake," by the Revd F. C. Ewer S.T.D. (New York, 1881), available at the Project Canterbury website:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/usa/ewer1.html
6. On the celebration of the Eucharist as the primary duty of a priest of the New Law, consider the the following remarks of F. W. Puller:
"I should therefore regard the presbyters of the Pauline Churches as pastors from the beginning; but I should also assert in the strongest way that the central and most important function of their pastorate was the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. When they baptized and confirmed, if they did confirm, they were dealing not with their Church, but with neophytes whom they were initiating into full membership in the Church. But when they celebrated the Holy Eucharist, they were offering the Church's Sacrifice, and providing the Banquet on which the Church was to feed." Essays and Letters on Orders and Jurisdiction (Longmans, Green and Co.; London, 1925), p.31
7. Cf. Puller, op. cit., pp. 20-21
8. Gulielmo Van Roo, S.J., De Sacramentis in Genere (Rome, 1960), p.74. See also Summa Theologiae Moralis (Vienna, 1940), Vol. III, p. 10.
9. A concise yet thorough treatment of this subject, complete with parallel examination of the relevant texts, can be found in The Lutheran Origin of the Anglican Ordinal (Burns Oates and Washbourne; London, 1934), by Dr. E. C. Messenger.
10. Dom Gregory Dix seems to allude to a nativa indoles ac spiritus -- or a closely approximating concept -- towards the close of his monumental The Shape of the liturgy (Dacre Press; Westminster, 1954), while contemplating the liturgical status quo in England in the aftermath of the abortive 1928 BCP:
"It is not ceremonial adjuncts but the Shape of the Liturgy which performs the eucharistic action; and it is the wording of the prayers which expresses its meaning. This is what is the essence of the matter. Though in all good faith the followers of the Oxford Movement interpreted Cranmer's rite as doing and meaning what they themselves did and meant, they had come to conceive that action and its meaning in a way which his rite was originally intended to directly contradict. Because worship always expresses and is in turn moulded by belief, they came in course of time -- often reluctantly and little by little -- to substitute other forms for his" (p. 706).
In a similar vein:
"The Church of England has officially rejected the most characteristic of Cranmer's doctrinal notions on the eucharist ever since 1559. But it has continuously had to use a liturgy which was quite brilliantly designed to express those particular notions" (p. 715).
11. Francis Clark, S.J., The Catholic Church and Anglican Orders (Catholic Truth Society, 1962), p. 21; quoted in Davies, op. cit., p. 123
12. According to the Scholastic system, if any of the four requirements for the valid conferral or confection of a Sacrament (viz., proper matter, form, minister, and intention) is found wanting, that is enough to invalidate the Sacrament.
The Scholastic view of intention is not ignored by Anglican theologians, however; see Dix, The Question of Anglican Orders (Dacre Press; Westminster, 1956), pp. 36-40. In Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism (Trafton; Lexington, KY, 1946), Felix Cirlot deconstructs the Scholastic definition and appears to endorse the "Catharinian" one, so named for Ambrosius Catharinus, a 16th-century theologian who maintained that proper ministerial intention need go no further than a desire to perform the rite seriously and properly; see pp. 363-391.
Cirlot marshals a number of effective arguments in his work which merit careful attention.
The definitive work on this subject from a Roman Catholic perspective would be Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention (Longmans, Green and Co.; London, 1956), by Francis Clark, S.J.
13. Moorman, op. cit., p. 365
14. Pius X, Pascendi Gregis (July 3, 1907)
15. The accusation commonly directed at the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions in the U.S. is that they lack organisational "unity" -- as if such unity is of paramount importance. See, rather, what already unites traditional Anglicans: a common (Catholic) Faith. Faith necessarily precedes true unity.
It is as Roman Catholics pray during the Holy Canon (1962 Missale Romanum):
"O Lord Jesus Christ, Who hast said to Thy Apostles: Peace I leave you, My peace I give you: regard not my sins but the faith of Thy Church, and be pleased to give her peace and unity according to Thy will"
(Domine Jesu Christe, qui dixisti Apostolis tuis: Pacem relinquo vobis, pacem meam do vobis: ne respicias peccata mea, sed fidem Ecclesiae tuae: eamque secundum voluntatem tuam pacificare et coadunare digneris).
16. By "recognise," we obviously limit the term to sacramental validity. Anglo-Catholics have always had some objections to certain vocabulary or emphases traditionally employed by the Roman Church in describing the effects of a given sacrament.
Precisely how much weight such distinctions have in light of Anglo-Catholic Continuing Churches is now a matter of serious debate.
17. The Forward in Faith movements in the C of E and ECUSA would be difficult for Rome to meet in dialogue, from a practical point of view, since FiF has (as of this writing) only "flying bishops," and not separate Provinces by which it might be distinguished in either communion.
18. This is not by any means the first time Anglicans have set aside the polemical language of the XXXIX Articles and sought to reconcile with other Catholics on the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Holy Priesthood; see E. C. Messenger, The Reformation, the Mass and the Priesthood (Longmans, Green and Co.; London, 1937), p. 621 et seq.
19. The author encourages Anglo-Catholic clergy to informally contact those traditional Roman Catholic apostolates which have the special permission of the Holy See to celebrate Mass, and administer the Sacraments, according to the 1962 liturgical books exclusively; for among such priests and seminarians, traditional Anglicans may be surprised to discover sympathetic friends -- and unexpected allies. The most recognized traditional apostolate is of course the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, or Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri (FSSP); but there is also the Institute of Christ the King; the Society of St. John Fisher (in the U.K.); among others.
20. "Under the outward forms of bread and wine, our Lord in his humanity, his Body and Blood, is taken by each of the faithful... [T]he Body of Christ, our dear Lord himself, is objectively present in the Holy Sacrament" -- from a sermon preached by the Rev. Ford Palmer, SSJE DD (1891-1985), reprinted in the September 1999 edition of The Messenger.
21. In the traditional Roman Pontificals, the prayer accompanying the porrectio instrumentorum begins, Accipe potestatem -- i.e., "Receive the power..." Thus, the Anglo-Catholic rite has auctoritatem (authority) where the Pontificale Sarusburiensis and Pontificale Romanum (until 1968) had potestatem. What significance this slight discrepancy has, if any, will be examined in Part II.
Click here to return to the Accipe Potestatem homepage.