A Matter of Fullness
I need not delve into the fine details of the myriad recent debates on the matter of Holy Orders as they relate to the Apostolic Constitution (AC) Anglicanorum Coetibus. The subject has been treated from perspectives theological and theoretical. I opine that this exchange of ideas is healthy, and also at this point, necessary. The topic is extremely complex and technical, with gallons of ink having been spilled — along with an equivalent amount of e-ink — in attempts to present tidy and definitive arguments. I am not going to attempt to sway anyone with this post by parsing the history of Papal Bulls or tracing the consecrations of “Continuing” Anglican Bishops. My intent here is to respond to the impetuous demand that, if Anglican clergy desire to become Catholic priests, we ought to cease immediately the performance of sacramental acts as Anglicans. It is a response from one priest, and I offer it from that perspective of which I spoke of in an earlier post — one of practicality. This practical theological approach I have sadly found lacking in much of the commentary offered by critics of the AC — commentary that has been presented from a strict, one-dimensional, either/or perspective. The matter of Holy Orders as it relates to Anglicans and the AC admits of none of these simplistic arguments which are often found wanting.
When I entered the Anglican communion, I arrived as one re-establishing my Catholic roots. I had been a Protestant minister, and was working through, by way of prayer and study, all things Catholic. I was on my way to Rome but discovered the Anglican tradition at a time in my journey that found me fitting comfortably. One of the subjects I knew to be of the utmost importance was that of Holy Orders. I knew in short: no priest, no Eucharist. So, I was wary of coming on board as the validity of Anglican orders had been questioned in the past. But I was exposed to several works regarding the endeavors of some Anglican groups to ensure the validity of their Orders, and this sufficed. However, as I progressed in my understanding of ecclesial matters, I became more and more convinced that although valid, my Orders were not complete. Not incomplete in a theological sense, but deficient with regard to their context. My orders were not expressed in the visible communion of the whole Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
1552 The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ – Head of the Church – before the assembly of the faithful, but also acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.
“In the name of the whole Church.” I knew that I was not acting in the name of the whole Church. If a priest is not in communion with all Catholics, he does not minister in the name of the whole Church. Consequently, there is a deficit. Those of us who desire to avail ourselves of the AC’s provisions endeavor to correct this deficit. It is a grave matter of conscience.
There are those who have stated emphatically that if we believe what the Catholic Church teaches, we must, due to the declaration of Apostolicae Curae, immediately cease our present ministries. I do firmly believe what the Church teaches. I am of the opinion that Pope Leo XIII’s proclamation was prophetic given the depths to which Anglicanism, broadly speaking, has sunk. Though, as I said, I believe what the Church teaches, I am not so myopic as to miss what She does. Given the well known case of Bishop Graham Leonard as an example, Rome has shown that there are exceptions to the rule. I submit that we are also exceptions. But the extraordinary provision of the Leonard case came only after lengthy canonical investigations, and I, for one, do not desire anything that will decelerate this process. So, in keeping with the admonitions of several of our friends to move on as soon as possible, it is our desire to facilitate the matter, moving as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, if absolute is quicker than conditional ordination, let’s go!
Another perspective that seems to be absent in the discourse of late is that of jurisdiction regarding Holy Orders. Since the rift of the sixteenth century, the Holy See has had no control over what goes on in the Anglican sphere. Consequently, how can the Church vouch for or guarantee the actions of Anglicans? She cannot, as She has no jurisdiction. As a result, in the process of implementing the AC, Rome must establish administrative jurisdiction over those bishops, priests, and deacons who will come under her authority. She must be able to assure all Catholics that the ministries of these men are valid beyond doubt, and the most absolute surety in the matter comes from absolute ordination. This matter of jurisdiction even applies, on occasion, in the temporal realm. One example may be found in the realm of law enforcement. I am a chaplain for a large County police agency. Some of the members of that agency are assigned to assist Federal agents. When they are assigned to those duties they are sworn in as Federal officers. The reason being, before they were assigned to assist Federal agents, their jurisdiction was limited to the County area, and Federal authorities had no responsibility for their actions as County officers. However, when it is necessary to expand their jurisdiction geographically, and due to Federal authorities now taking responsibility for the actions of County officers, it is necessary to swear them in as Federal officers. This additional “swearing in” in no way expresses a denial of what these officers did in the past (e.g. all of their prior arrests). We who seek the fullness of the priesthood under the authority of the Holy Father desire an expansion of authority to minister to the whole Church. So, why on earth would we think we did not have to be “sworn in?”
Again, these are the practical musings of one priest. In answer to those who demand to know why we don’t cease our ministries, it is because we have prayed, studied, and thought deeply about the matter. We are theologically convinced that it is unnecessary, and the Church has not instructed us otherwise. Hence, we obey the inward and outward direction of the Holy Spirit.
May you during this Advent season make straight the pathways to your souls,
“Doc”+
about 2 months ago
“My intent here is to respond to the impetuous demand that, if Anglican clergy desire to become Catholic priests, we ought to cease immediately the performance of sacramental acts as Anglicans.”
The intention of people who make this challenge to us is to try to force us into a corner so that we realise the absurdity (as they perceive it) of our position. This demand is designed to force us to “admit” the invalidity of our position and then rally either to their church organisation or at least to their anti-Roman Anglican position.
It is a similar logic to that used by extreme Roman Catholic traditionalists like the “sedevacantists”. The Church does not think in these categories. The Apostolic Constitution is evidence of the fact the Pope Benedict XVI will not tolerate stinginess designed to block the pastoral openness of the Church to all who want to come in.
In actual fact, Rome would not ask a priest to stop saying Mass unless he was canonically received individually as a layman (with or without a prospect of ordination by a Roman Catholic bishop).
Fr. Anthony
about 2 months ago
When talks with SSPX were taken up last year, many desired the Pope to deride SSPX chapels and command SSPX priests to stop saying Mass. Nothing of the like happened. The Pope neither regularized the SSPX nor has he cast them into outer darkness. Ditto for the TAC. He has instead given to both seats of honor, full access and an open ear. The Pope’s actions have been fatherly; as the father’s behavior in the parable of the prodigal who merely said: Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry.
Those who urge haste have their patron in Lady Jane Grey. The Pope does not urge haste; who are these imposters that do? I pity the controversialists and those they sucker.
about 2 months ago
I should also add that we have never attempted to “trash” those who call themselves Classical Anglicans. I respect their consciences and convictions, and pray that God may bless them in their own pilgrimage in the desert, or perhaps on their way to some Western Orthodox arrangement in the future.
But, we will defend ourselves if when we are accused of bad faith, insincerity or an intention to deceive.
Enough of the polemics! Let us take example from our saintly Pope in his generosity and lucid awareness of the real needs of the Church.
Fr. Anthony
about 2 months ago
Another parallel, drawn from the SSPX situation: Many “progressive”/Vatican II bishops — especially in Germany — have demanded that the SSPX cease conferring Holy Orders, since (canonically speaking) the SSPX Bishops lack jurisdiction. Technically, this is true; every SSPX ordination is illicit, from Rome’s perspective. But has the Holy Father insisted on this, or even politely echoed the liberal Bishops? No. Here again, he has displayed the patience and understanding of a true spiritual father.
The Orders situation in the present day is complicated, and Rome knows this. Apostolicae Curae notes that Anglican Orders “have been, and are” (fuisse at esse) null and void — not that they always would be. So far, there have of course only been two exceptions granted to the absolute rule: John Jay Hughes and Graham Leonard (in 1968 and 1992 respectively, I believe). So while the rule hasn’t changed (yet), the exceptions in se demonstrate the possibility of sub conditione ordinations going forward. What is also clear is this matter should not prevent Rome from reaching out to former Anglicans — and God be praised, it hasn’t. Much to the indignation of many “progressive” RC Bishops.
about 2 months ago
This is a very nicely written piece. Thank you, Father. Some challenge the value of what is written by saying that there is no such thing as a “half-sacrament”, and that is true. Sacraments are valid or they are not Sacraments.
However, we can invoke a kind of “economy” as is known in the Orthodox Churches, and also known accordng to different terminology in the Western Church. If we look at it from this angle, “convert” Anglican clergy would be considered by the Roman Catholic authority as not having received valid orders on their being received into the Church, but the possibility would be admitted of their conveying sacramental grace whilst they are where they presently are. This might not make much sense to an Augustinian or a scholastic, but quite an amount of Church practice follows “oikonomia” rather than “acribeia” (if I got the Greek terms right without looking them up).
The other chief justification for our continuing to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments is pastoral. And, as others have pointed out, Rome has not asked us to cease ministering as priests, at least for as long as we are in “canonical limbo”.
Fr. Anthony
about 2 months ago
I am a priest within the jurisdiction of the TAC. I must disagree with the view expressed here about the validity of Anglican Orders. I believe Anglican Orders to be absolutely valid in every respect. If the writer of this article believes that by accepting ordination from Rome his orders are complete, and he can therefore offer the Eucharist in the name of the whole church, he surely causes offence to the Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Churches are part of the whole church whilst not being in communion with either the Anglican Communion or the Roman Catholic Church. If the writer’s orders are only completed by further ordination, what is he going to do about the matter of the valid priesthood within the Orthodox Churches?
about 2 months ago
RobertAus,
Fr. Doc did not say that he thought Anglican orders to be invalid, merely that their expression was incomplete insofar as they were exercised outside of the visible unity of the Church.
about 2 months ago
Fr. Doc indicated that Anglican Orders were incomplete and that receiving absolute ordination from the Roman Catholic Church would make them complete. My point is that if Anglican Orders are incomplete according to Fr. Doc, then they surely can only be complete when faithful Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Orthodox are in full communion with each other. This is the only way that makes sense of Fr. Doc’s view that he needs completeness to minister in the name of the whole church. With due respect to Rome, it is not the whole church.
about 2 months ago
RobertAus,
I won’t presume to speak for Fr. Doc, but perhaps he was suggesting that a practical step to achieving that unity of the whole Church would be to regularize our situation, at least, with Rome? Rome recognizes the orders of the Orthodox Churches, but this is not officially reciprocated. Both see Anglican orders as suspect. These are the facts.
Despite what amateur theologians say about Apostolicae Curae, Rome has not said that the orders of our TAC priests (as things presently stand) are not efficacious channels of God’s grace in the Sacraments. They have not asked our priests to stop saying Holy Mass. Officials of the CDF has reassured us privately about the integrity of our sacramental life. It has not been questioned.
In light of these >facts<, Fr. Doc is simply pointing out that the repeated calls from our detractors that our clergy refrain from the performance of sacramental acts until such time as they are (re-)ordained Roman Catholic bishops, priests, or deacons are without merit. The situation is not black-and-white. Submitting to ordination in the Roman Church for the sake of unity is not saying that our present orders are invalid.
Our orders are "valid" and of that there is no real doubt on either side.
about 2 months ago
Thank you Christian,
The exceptions taken with this article are based on a scholastic approach to the validity of Orders. That is not helpful in the context in which it was written, that being practical musings. To appeal to what one perceives as the logical end of the declaration of “Apostolicae Curae” cannot apply to our current circumstance. The matter is much more complex. The point I tried to make is that, bottom line, if things were as neat as some seem to present, Rome would ask us to cease our sacramental actions. She has not. So, there has to be something more involved. What that something is has yet to be determined, and I am not a prophet. However, I can see the forest for the trees.
In the context of this post the question is not the validity of Orders, Roman, Eastern, or Anglican, because that is theoretically determined by the one to whom you speak at any given time. Nor is it a question of “half-sacraments” as there are no such things. It is a question of expression, of fullness, of unity. As the post states, we cannot claim to be acting for the whole Church, when the majority of the Church does not consider us in communion. It doesn’t matter how many times you say you’re in communion with someone: if they don’t believe you to be, you are not. It is communion we desire — the absolute surety of communion, so that there is no question in the mind of anyone as to our function.
As Christian commented, I did not say our Orders were invalid. I unequivocally state here and now I believe my Orders to be valid. However, I am willing for the sake of communion, fullness, to do whatever is necessary to guarantee that validity to the Church.
about 2 months ago
As a priest in the TAC, one would be able to freely administer the Sacraments to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox should they find it efficacious and expedient. How would ordination in the RCC expand one’s ability to be in communion with the whole Church? Where now he can act on being in communion with all Catholic Christians, after Roman affiliation he would be prohibited (at least on paper), even if privately he still held the rest of the Church actually was the rest of the Church. Is it more important to be accepted by a greater number or to accept the greatest number acceptable? Where is the fullness?
Nathan
about 2 months ago
Nathan,
You have just made Fr. Doc’s point for him. As a priest of the TAC, Fr. Doc recognizes Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as fellow Catholic Christians. He would gladly administer the sacraments to members of these Churches were they to ask. But you know what? That almost never happens. When a person unknown to Fr. Doc, for example one whom he might happen upon while making his rounds in a hospital, asks for a “Catholic priest,” Fr. Doc is obligated to qualify his catholicity, to inform the person of the fact that, while he considers himself Catholic, he is, in fact, an Anglican priest. Few Catholics or Orthodox familiar with the basic disciplines of their Churches feel comfortable receiving the ministrations of our clergy.
As a priest ordained in the Catholic Church, he would be no more likely to encounter Eastern Orthodox Christians as he is now, but were they to request his ministrations on account of their own clergy being unavailable, he would certainly be allowed to dispense the sacraments under the official discipline of the RCC. He will continue to believe that Orthodox Christians are Catholic just as he does now. He will “accept” no fewer fellow Catholics in the RCC, but hundreds of millions more will be able to accept him.
Again, we are confident of the >validity< of Anglican orders. But practically, the orders are only recognized and “current” in a very small portion of the Church Catholic.
about 2 months ago
Nathan,
Christian is quite correct. I am regularly confronted by this scenario in my work as a chaplain. When I throw the Anglican qualifier into the mix I have received everything from, “I don’t care, you’re a priest, ” to “Thanks, but I want a Catholic.” In short, it is not a question of validity, but of perception. There must be the rectification of the perception of 1 billion Catholics. You seem quite thoughtful, so I believe you can answer the question of numbers by way of Christian’s response. My acceptance of others is not, nor will it become an issue, particularly in exigency. However, others acceptance of me will be greatly increased. Plus, I won’t need the Anglican caveat and associated explanation.
In answer to your final question, that perception is the fullness. A visible expression of the priesthood recognized and acknowledged by all Catholics. That is not the case at present. A matter of practicality foreign to those lost in the theoretical.
about 2 months ago
Fr. Holiday wrote: I became more and more convinced that although valid, my Orders were not complete. Not incomplete in a theological sense, but deficient with regard to their context. My orders were not expressed in the visible communion of the whole Church.
He clearly says: Not incomplete in a theological sense. So it is clear that Fr. Holiday still considers himself a priest of the Catholic Church; as does every other priest in the TAC who continues to administer the Sacraments.
Although Fr. Holiday puts emphasis on the word communion, above, I think he should have stressed the word visible, for this is closer to what Rome holds regarding the necessarily visible nature of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; and from the gist of what he has written here, I believe this is what Fr. Holiday means by the deficient “context” of his priestly status.
My impression is that TAC clergy see their status right now as little different from that of clergy in the Society of St. Pius X. From Rome’s point of view, SSPX clergy are illicitly but validly ordained; Society priests lack jurisdiction; and, while priests (and bishops) of the Catholic Church, they lack visible communion with the Holy See. Even if the SSPX is in formal schism (and there is no consensus on this point), her ministers are perfectly valid, as are those of the Orthodox Churches (which are in schism from the traditional Roman point of view). So it is misleading and false to insist that any TAC clergy looking to be reconciled with the Holy See under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus have ipso facto renounced their Orders.
Responding to the above, Fr. Robert Hart (ACC) has argued that this statement is rendered meaningless by (1) the objective facts, (2) Roman Canon Law and (3) Anglicanorum Coetibus itself (or he may be referring to Apostolicae Curae — it isn’t clear, as he used the abbreviation AC).
All facts, of course, are objective; and there are a number of them to be taken into account here. First among those facts, however, is the stark fact (already mentioned above) that Rome has neither insisted, nor even asked clergy in FiF/UK or the TAC to cease ministration of the Sacraments. Taken together with Rome’s clearly-stated recognition that effectual Grace may be found beyond the visible bonds of communion (following the Augustinian rather than Cyprianic model) , it is clear that She doesn’t consider FiF/UK or TAC Sacraments an empty pantomine — which in the case of Sacraments, remember, would mean nothing less than sacrilege.
Regarding the point of Canon Law: the Ordinariate is an entirely new jurisdictional structure, as the Personal Prelature and Apostolic Administration were before it. As such, it is subject to the greater Code generally, but also to particular law. In the case of the Ordinariates, particular law would comprise of the Apostolic Constitution itself, the Complementary Norms, “as well as any other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate” (cf. §5, II). No Ordinariates have been established yet, so it isn’t clear what those “other specific norms” might include (even if by way of exception). One might hope that the possibility of sub conditione ordinations might be among them, even if this takes some negotiation and study (on the part of Roman canonists and theologians). We note here again that neither Rome nor FiF/UK-TAC is rushing headlong into establishing an Ordinariate. Details are being worked out and will emerge in due time.
As for Anglicanorum Coetibus itself, all it says is that former Anglican clergy are to be ordained. Unless I’ve missed a reference to ordination absolute (and it’s possible I missed it), this means nothing more than it says: i.e., ordination absolute or sub conditione. Moreover, even if ordination absolute is to remain the norm — for now — it may still be hoped that “other specific norms” relating to this or that Ordinariate may allow for exceptions, or even change the norm.
Everyone knows that, officially, only two conditional ordinations of former Anglican clergy have taken place since the Reformation in England: first was that of John Jay Hughes in 1968, and then that of Graham Leonard in 1992. But the very existence of these sub conditione ordinations does establish precedent, by definition. The only way to categorically rule out further conditional ordinations would be to make the odd case that the circumstances of Hughes’ and Leonard’s Anglican ordinations were unique in all the world. Obviously, no one in Rome has argued this — not to my knowledge, at any rate.
A further objection is raised: [I]f [Fr. Holiday] has identified the Roman or Papal Communion as the Church, then he has also confessed himself outside the Church, and willing so to remain for the time being.
As I’ve said, this is simply untrue. Rome certainly does not teach that anyone who is not in full, visible communion with her is “outside the Church.” Rome holds that visible communion — i.e., unity — is necessary as pertaining to one of the four marks of the Church: i.e., One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. But the note of exclusivity completely disregards the magisterial teaching that the Church founded by Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church; and it is in fact more of a Feeneyite argument than anything.
In any event, I want to stress that the position of Continuing Anglicans in this matter is not entirely unreasonable, even if some must resort to name-calling or insults in arguing their position. I count members of the ACC, APA and UECNA among my friends. These are principled men, fellow workers in the vineyard of the Lord; and I hope The Anglo-Catholic blog will continue to afford them the respectful courtesy that is their due. Would that you (I speak here as a traditional RC) could expect the same from them; but there is much anger and bitterness, and one fears we may be entering a new age of Anglican-Roman polemics. This would be a tragedy. Sancte Albane, ora pro nobis!