An Elephant in the Sacristy!: Is Apostolicae Curae still in force?
One of the most intractable issues in ecumenical dialogue is the question of the mutual recognition of apostolic ministry. From an official Roman Catholic perspective, the Orthodox have valid ministry. The ministries of some other, much smaller, groups, like the Old Catholics and the Society of St. Pius X, are generally considered valid as well. (I say “generally” because there are obvious exceptions to this. The Catholic Church does not recognize Old Catholic ordinations of women any more than when its own bishops attempt the same thing.)
The ecclesial communities stemming from the Reformation, on the other hand, are considered to have no valid ministry. The Anglicans, who most observers believe would have the best claim of all the Reformation communities to valid ministry, had their ministries declared “absolutely null and utterly void” by Apostolicae Curae back in 1896. Now, if the Catholic position is that Anglican clergy are simply laypersons in priest’s clothes, it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out the Catholic position on Pentecostal ministers.
Apostolicae Curae seems to be still in force. Kind of. At an official level, Catholics are still taught that Anglicans (and other Reformation communities) do not have valid ministry. On the other hand, many have noted that when the Archbishop of Canterbury visits the Pope he visits him as a brother bishop and not as a layman dressed in clerical garb.
Most ecclesiologists suggest that what is going on in practice is that the theology of Vatican II regarding the “real but imperfect communion” between non-Catholic Christians and the Catholic Church is being quietly extended to the treatment of ministry. In other words, what was before an all or nothing question has become a matter of degrees. The Catholic Church still officially says that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void,” but it doesn’t act that way.
There is another area where this dynamic has taken an interesting turn. It regards the question of married clergy. Catholic men not of the Roman Rite may be married priests (though not bishops) as a matter of course. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, can only be both married and a priest in extraordinary circumstances. The most common of these circumstances is when an Anglican priest, who is already married, converts to Catholicism and is granted permission to be ordained as a Catholic priest.
Father Dwight Longenecker is, in fact, one such priest. He has frequently written on the question of married clergy and is an interesting voice in this important conversation. In one article I recently came across, Father Longenecker notes that former Anglicans are not the only ones who have been able to take advantage of this pastoral provision. He writes:
“Faced with a new wave of converts from a whole range of denominations, Catholic bishops in the USA have pressed the Vatican on an important and interesting question: ‘If Anglican orders are “null and void”’ they argue, ‘why should their convert clergy be given special treatment? Why not ordain married former clergy of other denominations too?’
Rome has taken the point and now the Coming Home Network . . . reports that after suitable training, married pastors from the Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal and Presbyterian traditions have all been ordained as Catholic priests.”
This strikes me as a very fascinating development. If Anglican orders are null and void and former Anglican clergy can be ordained to the Catholic priesthood, then for the sake of consistency the same privilege must be extended to former clergy of other ecclesial communities whose ministries Rome does not recognize.
Fair enough, but I can’t help thinking that there is a rather large elephant in this room.
The traditional interpretation of “absolutely null and utterly void” is that there is no difference between an Anglican priest and an Anglican layperson. (There is no debating that the chosen adjectives do lend themselves to a strong rendering.) Furthermore, as Rome has acknowledged by the decision in question, there is no difference between an Anglican priest and a Pentecostal pastor.
But is there really no difference between an Anglican priest and an Anglican layperson? To put the question in its blunt form: could an Anglican layperson who is married and converts to Catholicism be ordained to the Catholic priesthood? Could a married lay Presbyterian do the same? If Rome insists that “absolutely null and utterly void” means what it has always been understood to mean, I find it hard to answer these questions in the negative.
But this leads us into an intolerable position: what disqualifies a married man from ordination to the presbyterate of the Catholic Church is the simple fact of having always been a Catholic!
Now it is entirely possible that I am missing something here, and I am happy to hear what that something might be, but, as far as I can tell, Rome has put itself in a bit of a bind. The practice of ordaining married former clergy from other Christian communities says at least one of the following two things:
1. People ordained in Anglican and Protestant communities are not simply lay people.
2. Married Roman Catholic men can be ordained to the priesthood as long as they are converts from another Christian community who converted after their marriage.
Inasmuch as option #2 looks nonsensical, it appears as if the Magisterium is quietly reinterpreting “absolutely null and utterly void” even as it claims to be applying it.
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
This is sort of like when Pope Paul VI, while not accepting the validity of Protestant Eucharist, still proclaimed that when Protestants celebrate communion “it is a means of grace for them.” Well, what is a valid sacrament other than something that confers grace?
The Church is realizing that there are degrees.
An established fellowship a baptized (therefore, possessing grace) Christians, embracing Scripture and the Nicene Creed, call one of their fellowship to spiritual leadership. Not exactly the same as valid ordination? OK. But without merit, grace, true authority or the blessings of the Spirit? I don’t think so.
God has given us seven great gifts in the Sacraments. No debate there. But God showers his gifts in multitudes of ways and occasions and even outside the visable bounds of full communion with the Catholic Church. Be careful putting limits on God’s love, mercy and grace. It’s never a good bet.
Now, any horse Jeremy Rose is riding. That is a good bet.
Drat. A quick Google search indicates that my title is not nearly as original as hoped.
It seems to me that, when a Protestant (including, for the purposes of this note, Anglican and Baptist, who for different reasons decline the title) male becomes a clergyman within his denomination, he does so because:
1. He senses a Spirit-led “call to ministry”; that is, vocation to the clerical state of life within Christ’s church; and,
2. He hasn’t a clue that his current denomination is not, in fact, perfectly legitimately and unreservedly a part of Christ’s church.
Now if this man later becomes convinced that he was wrong about Item 2, it does not follow that he was wrong about Item 1.
When he decides he was wrong about Item 2, he becomes a Catholic.
If, thereafter, the Church decides he was nevertheless right about Item 1, he may become a Catholic priest.
Now, if he marries before becoming convinced of the claims of the Catholic church, does that fact, itself, indicate with surety that he was wrong about Item 1?
I don’t see that it does, especially if he decides to marry after discerning a call to ministry, and prior to beginning to accept the claims of the Catholic church. After all, during that period, he hasn’t any reason not to consider himself open to marrying…and in some denominations married clergy are strongly preferred for pastoral positions.
In that case, you have a man whom the Holy Spirit led towards ordination; he obeyed as best he knew how. Later, when he became convinced of the Catholic claim, he continued to obey, and became a Catholic. In between, he married, but in doing so certainly cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing, as he had no reason to think it incompatible with the Holy Spirit’s call.
So we have this question: Does The Church have any reason to think that the failure of the Holy Spirit to (successfully!) warn the man away from marriage constitutes proof that the Holy Spirit never called that man to priestly ministry; that his sense of being called was imaginary?
Brett, at the end of your post, you offered two possibilities:
1. People ordained in Anglican and Protestant communities are not simply lay people.
2. Married Roman Catholic men can be ordained to the priesthood as long as they are converts from another Christian community who converted after their marriage.
I opt for #1, as you do, but perhaps not in the way you envisioned it.
It seems to me you think of Option 1 in this way: “People ordained in Anglican and Protestant communities are not simply lay people, because their ordination in those communities has a permanent impact on their souls somehow similar to that given by Catholic, Apostolic ordination.”
But I adopt Option 1 in the following way: “People ordained in Anglican and Protestant communities are are simply lay people thus far, but their ordination in Anglican and Protestant communities constitutes good evidence that the Holy Spirit may have called them towards priestly ministry, which they followed as best they knew, and that their marriage does not constitute evidence to the contrary. They are not different from other Catholic laypersons for having undergone Protestant ordination; they are (possibly) different from other Catholic laypersons because the Holy Spirit has (possibly) called them to a state of life to which the Holy Spirit has not called most Catholic laypersons.”
If you suspect the Holy Spirit is working in someone’s life in a particular, identifiable, and somewhat unusual way, it seems logical to adjust your treatment of them to take that suspicion into account.
And as for Option #2?
You shy away from Option #2, stating that it “looks nonsensical.” But what if it only looks that way?
After all, the same “trajectory of life” I described above might (possibly) apply to a lay convert: He had all along felt called to some kind of pastoral ministry, but never went to seminary or pursued preaching because something never quite fit, and he wasn’t sure what.
So he remained in his lay state, always wanting to “help around the church,” perhaps coming on staff as a music minister or some other role not requiring ordination. Along the way, he marries, not knowing any reason not to do so. Then, one day, curious about “what Catholics believe,” he investigates the Catholic faith, and like a thunderclap, sees that this is what has been missing from his understanding of the Christian faith. He becomes a Catholic.
And now what? All along he felt called to ordained ministry, but some theological reservations held him back. Now he has no such reservations, but his married state does.
Is it possible that, here again, the Holy Spirit was calling him all along, but he simply didn’t know to avoid marriage?
My opinion is that it’s possible. But I suspect it’s less likely: The ordination in a Protestant community, for me, constitutes a more powerful evidence of a call than does some hint he never acted upon.
But if we give the benefit of the doubt here, it seems plausible that a convert (or, to be more accurate since we’re speaking of a baptized Christian here, a “reconciled former Protestant”) might have had a vocation all along, and married simply because he didn’t yet have any reason not to.
If the Church chooses to acknowledge this, then…that’s just the Church being generous. If she chooses not to do so, then that’s just the Church being prudent. I’ll give the Pope and the Magisterium the benefit of the doubt either way.
As for your comment that Option 2 “looks nonsensical”: May I submit that the problem is not that it looks nonsensical, but that it looks unfair to cradle Catholics?
I mean, it really does, doesn’t it? “Here we are, we’re the good boys and girls, growing up with all the disciplines and strictures, and maybe some knuckle-rapping nuns in Catholic school, and these former Protestants, who haven’t had these hardships, get to do stuff we can’t do! How unfair!”
I sympathize with this point-of-view; in fact, in my mind prudence outweighs generosity on this topic and I think I’d not only reject married lay former Protestants as candidates for priesthood, but I’d remain pretty picky about the former Protestant clergy, too.
But this thought gives me pause: The cry of “unfair” on this point sounds an awful lot like the attitude of the older brother in the Prodigal Son parable, and equally like the attitude of the early-riser workers in the parable of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). (“Is thine eye evil because I am good?”)
So while I opt for a particular view of Option #1, I don’t rule Option #2 out.
I must know you too well. I read the first sentence and thought “This must be a Salkeld post”.
Back during the time of the Oxford Movement when Anglican Clergy left the CoE when it decided that belief in Baptismal Regeneration was optional only unmarried or widowed clergy such as Manning and Newman were allowed to become Catholic Priests. Many married Anglican clergy who left the CoE for Rome at this time were left without a “living” and had to support their family by other means – they truly made sacrifices for their conversion to the Catholic faith.
I find it very difficult to respect the current group of converts (Anglican, Baptist or Presbyterian) who seem to make their conversion contingent upon being made an ordained Catholic Priest.
Let’s carry current policy a step further. Let’s say a married Rabbi or Mullah converts to Catholicism. Why shouldn’t they also be permitted to be ordained to the Catholic Priesthood?
I don’t think the Church in reality has moved away from it. In fact looking at the relative recent documents “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” and “Dominus Iesus” it was strengthened.
I think the Church is making a Pastoral judgement that there were men that were called to the service of “ministry” to use that word but were in lets say ignorance of the full truth. The Church is making a reasonable allowance in respecting that call in some cases
Dear Brett,
Thank you for a very interesting post. The question, I think, is: Does the judgment that Anglican orders are “invalid” mean that Roman Catholics just cannot distinguish between an Anglican priest and an Anglican layperson? And, if, as you suggest, “People ordained in Anglican and Protestant communities are not simply lay people,” how is that theologically intelligible?
I suspect that the possible answers are the same as in the 1960s, focusing on “economy,” or, in a Western canonical context, the idea of ecclesia supplet. Two proposals, then, might be:
1. As the Orthodox Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky argued earlier, the Spirit can supply “what is wanting in the historical embodiment and continuity of the order of salvation.” Thus, the Church can presently recognize sacraments, including ordination, that have seemed inauthentic, in the name of “economy.”
2. Perhaps, as in the work of Fr Killian McDonnell, and mentioned by the 1967 ARCIC Preparatory Commission, Protestant ministries can be seen as “a set of charismatic ministries standing in a different way in the apostolic succession alongside episcopal orders,” recognizable in the name of “economy.”
But have anything like these proposals been further developed, or at least made less vague? Could they be?
Neil
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York published a response to Aposolicae Curae, Saepius Officio? Has Rome ever replied to this response?
I opt for #1, as you do, but perhaps not in the way you envisioned it.
It seems to me you think of Option 1 in this way: “People ordained in Anglican and Protestant communities are not simply lay people, because their ordination in those communities has a permanent impact on their souls somehow similar to that given by Catholic, Apostolic ordination.”
For the record, I did not envision a particular reading of option #1. I think it is clear that Rome is not treating former Protestant clergy simply as lay people. What framework they are using when they do so is not clear to me. The possibility you mention here is one possible reading of it. Other possibilities have been mentioned by both yourself (RC) and other commenters.
It has been long known that the original declaration has been questioned on many grounds — the Vatican in fact has often been in on that questioning. For example, it is widely known the declaration ignored all kinds of distinctions within the Anglican communion, and how not all of them followed the precedence of Canterbury. Another thing which has happened since is that many Old Catholics have also worked with the Anglicans and have even done ordinations. Plus, some of the assumptions used have been questioned — that the principle could be sound, but the data was not exactly as the Vatican originally thought. In reality, it is kept open.
But there is also another possible reading: while the clergy are not recognized as ordained, they might be recognized as leading some sort of life which presents to us their vocation and so it is to be fulfilled within our communion. This was a way missionaries often found priests: they recruited from the pagan clergy. Perhaps it is something like this.
“Here we are, we’re the good boys and girls, growing up with all the disciplines and strictures, and maybe some knuckle-rapping nuns in Catholic school, and these former Protestants, who haven’t had these hardships, get to do stuff we can’t do! How unfair!”
Yes, how unfair.
And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine.
But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.
Right. I’d like to add to Henry Karlson that though their orders may be entirely invalid, that does not mean their ministry is invalid. Indeed, the sacraments of baptism and marriage do not require an ordained minister, so there would still be within the Anglican Communion the bases for Christian family life.
Kurt commented:
But Kurt, that glosses the definition of a sacrament and so misses a huge distinction. Lots of things confer grace that aren’t sacraments. Prayer comes to mind immediately. As does study of the scriptures. Life in Christian community and voluntarily accepted suffering are both tremendous fonts of grace. None of those things is a sacrament, though all of them are sacramental. Sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us,” (CCC 1131). The key distinction between a sacrament and a sacramental, Kurt, is the objective efficacy of the former versus the contingency of the latter. To say that a Protestant communion service can or does confer grace is not at all confusing it with the Eucharist as instituted by Christ, safeguarded by the Church, and that effectively, objectively confers and strengthens eternal life.
In reality, the admission of married converts to holy orders changes very little. The Church has never taught that married men cannot be ordained; she has only refrained from doing so in the West. Now, loosening that restriction a bit does not constitute a change in doctrine or even a precursor to wholesale change in the discipline, though it does admittedly stir up some situations that feel kinda weird.
Kurt:
Yes, exactly! Precisely the point I made; but I probably should have quoted the entire passage as you did. (Although my post was long enough as it was!)
In reply to Marv:
Marv, you state:
I find it very difficult to respect the current group of converts (Anglican, Baptist or Presbyterian) who seem to make their conversion contingent upon being made an ordained Catholic Priest.
Huh! That’s a new one on me; are there any such persons?
I ask because (a.) I haven’t heard of any, and (b.) my exposure to clergy-conversion stories (coming through EWTN’s “The Journey Home,” the “Coming Home Network,” and the various Surprised By Truth books from Patrick Madrid) shows all of those converts’ stories to have certain elements in common:
1. They seem uniformly to have been influenced by the writings of the Church Fathers;
2. They seem uniformly to have felt, and taken seriously the pressure of “being the Pope”; that is, of being judged more stringently because they were teachers and obligated to teach the truth;
3. They seem to have lost or injured many friendships or family relationships through their decision, although these were sometimes repaired later on.
4. They seem to have been advised by Priests and Bishops to not even consider whether they could possibly become priests, but first ask themselves whether they were obligated to become Catholic, even if they never spoke from a pulpit again.
So I am unaware of a tendency among converts to make conversion contingent on priesthood. In fact, judging by the stories I’ve heard, it seems to me that the Church has been pretty good at convincing them that there were absolutely no guarantees of anything of the kind.
And if I’m not mistaken, the process of receiving approval from the Bishop and ultimately from the Holy See for a married convert to become a priest usually can go on for a long time: A year after being received into the Church, minimum, and often for many years. During this period the convert, with his wife and children, must be supported in other ways: A job at Home Depot or Kroger not being unheard-of, though a diocese might sometimes employ them as catechists or school teachers.
And if a convert (I dislike using that term for non-Catholic Christians who become Catholic, but it’ll do for the moment) does become a priest in the end, I think it’s clear that his income usually suffers in comparison to that which would exist in the various Protestant denominations. That’s not such a bad thing, for a single guy, but for a man with a family to feed, it can be a major sacrifice.
That, at any rate, is my impression of the norm for Protestant clergy converts. But perhaps I am misinformed? Let me know.
You also add:
Let’s carry current policy a step further. Let’s say a married Rabbi or Mullah converts to Catholicism. Why shouldn’t they also be permitted to be ordained to the Catholic Priesthood?
Hmm. I think the difference there is a bit wider: I do see a substantial difference between the Mullah who becomes Catholic, and the Presbyterian who becomes Catholic. (The Rabbi would be somewhere between the two.)
First, the Presbyterian was validly baptized into Christ. Catholics believe in baptismal regeneration and hold that baptism to be real: A seal on the soul, a new birth from above, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Mullah could have none of this, and the Rabbi, while perhaps having received some graces when brought into the old covenant on the eighth day, would not, I suspect, be held to receive anywhere near the union with Christ that the Presbyterian received at baptism.
As a consequence, I don’t think that one could plausibly hold that the process by which a young Muslim became a Mullah was the same as the process by which a young Presbyterian became a pastor. I don’t doubt that the Holy Spirit can and does work on the hearts of Muslims — else there’d never be cases of Muslims coming to Christ! — but it seems to me that the process of leading a baptized Christian towards ordination is a lot like the process of cell differentiation in a developing body. The stem cells start out undifferentiated, but over time become the distinct cells of specific tissues in the body.
The Presbyterian, by virtue of his Trinitarian baptism, has some imperfect union with the periphery of the Body of Christ, so it’s plausible that he might be developing towards becoming one of those nerve cells or blood vessels which connect the muscles of the Body to The Head; namely, the ordained Catholic clergy.
But I don’t see how that could hold true of a Muslim, who is unbaptized and thus distinctly not yet in any form of communion with Christ, even imperfectly.
But I admit that’s not a flawless argument by any means. Could the Holy Spirit intend a Muslim or Rabbi to come into the priesthood? Well, sure: And in the Middle East, where they might in fact convert to Eastern Orthodoxy or to Eastern-Rite Catholicism, the fact that they were married would be little issue.
But because they were less connected with Christ to begin with than the Anglican or Presbyterian or Lutheran or whomever, my gut tells me that there’s a less obvious, less natural progression. It’s less plausible — not impossible, but less plausible — that their previous clergy state was a sign that the Holy Spirit had been preparing them for the sacrificial priesthood of the Catholic church.
That’s my gut talking. The Magisterium outranks my gut, so if they say something different on the topic (or have already said something of which I’m unaware), then all I’ve just said should be ignored. But pending such a statement, that’s how I’d look at it.
A second conversation regarding this piece has popped up here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7449618/
Ahh, the wonders of the interweb.
If you read Apostolicae Curae carefully, you will see that it only condemns the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 (reissued by Elizabeth in 1559). It explicitly declares the Caroline Ordinals (the Scottish one of 1637, and the English/Welsh/Irish ones of 1662) and their successors in America and subsequently to be satisfactory, but ineffective since the line of succession had died out. Once Utrecht succession bishops and others (there have always been rumours of the odd Orthodox joining in in places like Alaska in the past) started taking part in Anglican consecrations, then even on strict AC terms, then a valid succession would have quite possibly resumed.
(As an aside one should point out that extreme schismatic groups to the right of even the SSPX who are sedevacantists have used Apostolicae Curae to argue that the post Vatican II Ordinals are invalid, and thus that there are virtually no real priests, let alone bishops in the Church! Their arguments may be twaddle, but they are there nonetheless!)