What do you think?
Rate this book
Theology and Life Series #31
A Review of Anglican Orders: The Problem and the Solution
What Roman Catholic theology designates as "the problem of Anglican orders" is examined in light of new information gathered from the opening of the Vatican Archives by Pope John Paul II for the period when these ordinations were condemned by Pope Leo XIII. Both the history of their condemnation and the possibility for future recognition of Anglican orders by the Roman Catholic Church is explored.
170 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1990
1 person is currently reading
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 30, 2016
This book was recommended by Franciscan Friar who knows this subject matter much better than I.
He having written an article in the leftist-Catholic Jesuit periodical "America" on this, I have put in my two cents too on the subject. Tavard's book is well-written with authoritative statements on the issues related to ordination.
Tavard writes: "the presumption that the Anglican priesthood is apostolically invalid “need not apply any longer. Arguments in support of the presumption of validity may be drawn from several areas: the general predominance, in contemporary Anglicanism, of “high church” over “low church” conceptions of the sacraments; the present evidence that Anglican bishops intend to do what the Church does in ordination; . . . the growth of a theology of the priesthood that is shared by Catholics and Anglicans alike . . . ; the increasing mistrust of the Aristotelian categories of form and matter in sacramental theology; the progressive abandonment of a “pipe-line” conception of apostolic succession in Catholic theology; the recognition of Anglican orders by Orthodox Churches by virtue of the ‘principle of economy’”.
A valid sacrament (supposedly) has to have the proper "form", "matter" or "intention" in Roman Catholic traditions.
Assuming the traditional approach in using Greek metaphysics (of which the Roman Church is less inclined to do these days) the rite of Anglican ordination still more or less passes the sacred litmus test by Tavard's lights.
The “matter” in the case of Episcopal ordination is understood in the Catholic Church to be the “laying on of hands,” a practice that is the same in Anglican churches.
A proper “intention” in ordaining Bishops or priests is akin to the institution of a holy caste consecrated for the purpose of succeeding the Apostles.
Ordination is typically the “setting apart” of a separate class of individuals.
The doctrine "ex opera operato" is a principle of grave import in Roman Catholic circles.
"Ex opera operato" is an Ancient teaching of the Roman Church that effects much of sacramental theology.
Pope Stephen I held for the real efficacy of baptism by heretics and did not call for re-baptism in many circumstances.
Baptism from a "lay" person (not intending everything doctrinally meant by the Roman Church in relation to the sacrament) is thought perfectly valid (even today) so long that the liturgical praxis is nearly the same.
A “presumption of validity” for baptism means that a precedent for the "efficacy" of sacraments instituted amongst sinners or the heterodox exist, which can then in theory be applied to ordination as well in my opinion (however loosely).
Any priest who sins in "thought, word or deed", remains a consecrated priest in the Catholic Church (contra Donatism or the like), having the same privileged role in the community of believers even when in sin.
For Tavard, the Roman Church has typically taken issue with the specific “form” the words spoken at the ordination have, in particular in the ordination rite's “preface”.
Apparently the words betray the true intention of Anglican ordination, invalidating the Church of England's Bishops in a way apart from that of the other "schismatic" Orthodox Churches.
Placing aside the delicate questions of sacramental wording (all the same) scholars typically agree with George Tavard that: “the differences between the Roman and the Anglican rites of ordination, insofar as they explicitly refer to the sacerdotal or sacrificial nature of the Christian priesthood, remain minimal.”
Perhaps politically necessary or doctrinally fitting during the time of Leo XIII’s period in history, the claim on the part of the Pope that Anglican orders remain “null and void” now seems, respectfully, somewhat inappropriate.
The drive now is less about the exact wording and more about the sacramental meaning of ordination itself. The Roman Church's position for a “presumption” similar to baptism (rather than outright acceptance) is thought now prudent and wise.
At the turn of the century for instance this appeared too radical or politically unpalatable, however understandably so provided the political context.
A key assumption is that the Aristotelian categories are the best way to speak of the sacraments or ordination in particular.
In peripheral issues of such wide-ranging subjects as transubstantiation, apostolic succession or ecumenical outreach, the re-working of the traditional terminology or methodology is given wider-currency in the Roman Church today (for better or for worse).
"Transubstantiation" for example by the authoritative teaching is a “fitting” word for what occurs during the moments of consecration.
Now the emphasis in the contemporary Roman Church or other "orthodox" traditions is less on the priest’s special powers or ontological distinction while more on the power or role of the priest in the context of the entire liturgy.
What exactly happens at the consecration is often thought the preoccupation of the Western Church during a time when Aristotelian metaphysics were applied to "incomplete" questions regarding the central mystery of liturgical rites, that is, the Eucharist.
Ordination now can be similarly understood in a way that leaves behind the Aristotelian categories of matter or form for more nuanced approaches.
“Lex orandi, lex credenda” remains the traditional mode of reasoning about the liturgy in the Roman Church. Literally, the phrase means something akin to “the Church believes as she prays.”
Tavard asks the following question: “did not his liturgy, by the traditional elements that it preserved from the Catholic past, convey the Church’s faith on eucharist, priesthood, and orders, better than his theology intended? In other words, in order to judge whether the Ordinal serves as channel of the sacramental grace of orders, one has to focus on other modes of faith than the strictly doctrinal one. Such a concern was foreign to the neo-scholastic mode advocated by Leo XIII.”
A practical or logical step seems to be to re-align the Anglican Church with the Roman Catholic through a presumption that admits the universal validity of the ordination rite. Conflicts and difficulties with this position remain. Nevertheless it seems to be a bold affirmation or welcome development toward Christian unity.
*I of course have no authority on this matter one way or another.
In the case of the Protestant who has been questionably baptized the "conditional" baptism will typically be performed or recommended. The practice can change when the sacramental theology or circumstances do in my opinion.
A tricky question of the “null and void” declaration in the Apostolicae Curae remains.
My understanding is that one encyclical does not a tradition make. Popes can err on matters not related to the deposit of faith, especially when provided limited information in the scope of history.
Every aspect of an Encyclical need not only be understood in the categories of universal or perennial truth or falsehood.
Leo XIII may have been correct to point out the deficiencies in the Ordinal of the Anglican Church. He may have been right to legally declare the ordination null and void with respect to the form or intention of the rite.
However, "absolute perfect form" is not necessary to have sacramental grace by the logic of Roman theology. Neither is absolute perfect intention necessary in order to communicate the grace of ordination. This I think means that Anglican orders can be valid in this respect too.
The Vatican II document Unitatis redintegratio states that at the Reformation, “many communions, national and confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican communion occupies a special place.”
What can this mean other than that the Anglican Church is nearest in practice or belief to the Catholic Church, more so than, say, any of the other “Protestant” churches.
Anglicans are often seen to be near enough to find their “separated brethren” in the Catholic Church close allies, but also so close that the historical tensions between the churches can sometimes run high.
More Anglicans are now becoming Catholics while more Catholics convert to the Anglican communion nowadays. Hopefully changes can be made so that divided loyalties need not keep Christians from serving in unity of faith or practice the same church of Christ.
He having written an article in the leftist-Catholic Jesuit periodical "America" on this, I have put in my two cents too on the subject. Tavard's book is well-written with authoritative statements on the issues related to ordination.
Tavard writes: "the presumption that the Anglican priesthood is apostolically invalid “need not apply any longer. Arguments in support of the presumption of validity may be drawn from several areas: the general predominance, in contemporary Anglicanism, of “high church” over “low church” conceptions of the sacraments; the present evidence that Anglican bishops intend to do what the Church does in ordination; . . . the growth of a theology of the priesthood that is shared by Catholics and Anglicans alike . . . ; the increasing mistrust of the Aristotelian categories of form and matter in sacramental theology; the progressive abandonment of a “pipe-line” conception of apostolic succession in Catholic theology; the recognition of Anglican orders by Orthodox Churches by virtue of the ‘principle of economy’”.
A valid sacrament (supposedly) has to have the proper "form", "matter" or "intention" in Roman Catholic traditions.
Assuming the traditional approach in using Greek metaphysics (of which the Roman Church is less inclined to do these days) the rite of Anglican ordination still more or less passes the sacred litmus test by Tavard's lights.
The “matter” in the case of Episcopal ordination is understood in the Catholic Church to be the “laying on of hands,” a practice that is the same in Anglican churches.
A proper “intention” in ordaining Bishops or priests is akin to the institution of a holy caste consecrated for the purpose of succeeding the Apostles.
Ordination is typically the “setting apart” of a separate class of individuals.
The doctrine "ex opera operato" is a principle of grave import in Roman Catholic circles.
"Ex opera operato" is an Ancient teaching of the Roman Church that effects much of sacramental theology.
Pope Stephen I held for the real efficacy of baptism by heretics and did not call for re-baptism in many circumstances.
Baptism from a "lay" person (not intending everything doctrinally meant by the Roman Church in relation to the sacrament) is thought perfectly valid (even today) so long that the liturgical praxis is nearly the same.
A “presumption of validity” for baptism means that a precedent for the "efficacy" of sacraments instituted amongst sinners or the heterodox exist, which can then in theory be applied to ordination as well in my opinion (however loosely).
Any priest who sins in "thought, word or deed", remains a consecrated priest in the Catholic Church (contra Donatism or the like), having the same privileged role in the community of believers even when in sin.
For Tavard, the Roman Church has typically taken issue with the specific “form” the words spoken at the ordination have, in particular in the ordination rite's “preface”.
Apparently the words betray the true intention of Anglican ordination, invalidating the Church of England's Bishops in a way apart from that of the other "schismatic" Orthodox Churches.
Placing aside the delicate questions of sacramental wording (all the same) scholars typically agree with George Tavard that: “the differences between the Roman and the Anglican rites of ordination, insofar as they explicitly refer to the sacerdotal or sacrificial nature of the Christian priesthood, remain minimal.”
Perhaps politically necessary or doctrinally fitting during the time of Leo XIII’s period in history, the claim on the part of the Pope that Anglican orders remain “null and void” now seems, respectfully, somewhat inappropriate.
The drive now is less about the exact wording and more about the sacramental meaning of ordination itself. The Roman Church's position for a “presumption” similar to baptism (rather than outright acceptance) is thought now prudent and wise.
At the turn of the century for instance this appeared too radical or politically unpalatable, however understandably so provided the political context.
A key assumption is that the Aristotelian categories are the best way to speak of the sacraments or ordination in particular.
In peripheral issues of such wide-ranging subjects as transubstantiation, apostolic succession or ecumenical outreach, the re-working of the traditional terminology or methodology is given wider-currency in the Roman Church today (for better or for worse).
"Transubstantiation" for example by the authoritative teaching is a “fitting” word for what occurs during the moments of consecration.
Now the emphasis in the contemporary Roman Church or other "orthodox" traditions is less on the priest’s special powers or ontological distinction while more on the power or role of the priest in the context of the entire liturgy.
What exactly happens at the consecration is often thought the preoccupation of the Western Church during a time when Aristotelian metaphysics were applied to "incomplete" questions regarding the central mystery of liturgical rites, that is, the Eucharist.
Ordination now can be similarly understood in a way that leaves behind the Aristotelian categories of matter or form for more nuanced approaches.
“Lex orandi, lex credenda” remains the traditional mode of reasoning about the liturgy in the Roman Church. Literally, the phrase means something akin to “the Church believes as she prays.”
Tavard asks the following question: “did not his liturgy, by the traditional elements that it preserved from the Catholic past, convey the Church’s faith on eucharist, priesthood, and orders, better than his theology intended? In other words, in order to judge whether the Ordinal serves as channel of the sacramental grace of orders, one has to focus on other modes of faith than the strictly doctrinal one. Such a concern was foreign to the neo-scholastic mode advocated by Leo XIII.”
A practical or logical step seems to be to re-align the Anglican Church with the Roman Catholic through a presumption that admits the universal validity of the ordination rite. Conflicts and difficulties with this position remain. Nevertheless it seems to be a bold affirmation or welcome development toward Christian unity.
*I of course have no authority on this matter one way or another.
In the case of the Protestant who has been questionably baptized the "conditional" baptism will typically be performed or recommended. The practice can change when the sacramental theology or circumstances do in my opinion.
A tricky question of the “null and void” declaration in the Apostolicae Curae remains.
My understanding is that one encyclical does not a tradition make. Popes can err on matters not related to the deposit of faith, especially when provided limited information in the scope of history.
Every aspect of an Encyclical need not only be understood in the categories of universal or perennial truth or falsehood.
Leo XIII may have been correct to point out the deficiencies in the Ordinal of the Anglican Church. He may have been right to legally declare the ordination null and void with respect to the form or intention of the rite.
However, "absolute perfect form" is not necessary to have sacramental grace by the logic of Roman theology. Neither is absolute perfect intention necessary in order to communicate the grace of ordination. This I think means that Anglican orders can be valid in this respect too.
The Vatican II document Unitatis redintegratio states that at the Reformation, “many communions, national and confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican communion occupies a special place.”
What can this mean other than that the Anglican Church is nearest in practice or belief to the Catholic Church, more so than, say, any of the other “Protestant” churches.
Anglicans are often seen to be near enough to find their “separated brethren” in the Catholic Church close allies, but also so close that the historical tensions between the churches can sometimes run high.
More Anglicans are now becoming Catholics while more Catholics convert to the Anglican communion nowadays. Hopefully changes can be made so that divided loyalties need not keep Christians from serving in unity of faith or practice the same church of Christ.
Displaying 1 of 1 review