I must admit that here we are approaching the limit of my not very deep understanding of the this topic. But my impression is that Roman concerns focussed on the form and intention of the Anglican ordination ceremony, reflecting the underlying concept of priesthood shared by Anglicans, rather than on the question of whether ordination had to be conferred by a bishop who himself had been consecrated by a bishop in the line of apostolic succession, since I think Anglicans and Romans are agreed on the latter point. But as to what the differences regarding the nature of priesthood are, I’m less clear. The 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on the point here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm. But as that is a translation into 1913 English of 1913 theological concepts orginally articulated in Latin, I’m not sure that it’s much of a help to the modern reader grappling with the subject.
Jimmmy, it’s entirely true to say that “RCs don’t accept Anglican priests and priests”. If an Anglican priest enters the Roman church and wishes to minister as a priest, he has to be conditionally re-ordained, and a necessary precursor to that is that he must be confirmed and that he must have the necessary training and formation. (Presumably the latter is fast-tracked on the basis of “credit” for his Anglican training and formation). But there is an acceptance that he has had a genuine call to priesthood from God and that his Anglican ordination and ministry was a true response to that call.
Is it inconsistent to allow married Anglican clergymen to be ordained in the Roman tradition? Not necessarily. Celibacy has never been a matter of doctrine, but it is a long-established matter of discipline. A Roman Catholic who has a call to priesthood is expected to know that a commitment to celibacy is required. However an Anglican who has a similar call is not expected to commit to celibacy, and he can both marry and respond to his call. If he subsequently enters the Roman Catholic church he should not required to choose between his existing marriage and his genuine call to priesthood.
I have to say I’m not entirely convinced by this. I see no reason why someone raised in the Roman Catholic tradition should not have both a call to matrimony and a call to priesthood. But I don’t think that the admission of married Anglican ministers to Roman priesthood is “inconsistent”, unless every practice which is applied in specific cases rather than universally is “inconsistent”.
I think you and I are in agreement re a large portion of your post. My point re “inconsistency”, unclearly made, was not so much that RC’s let converting married guys become priests (hell, they let some in-communion w. Rome Orthodox guys be ordained that way).
My point re inconsistency was essentially this : Father Anglican, Your orders are utterly null and void, you are not a priest and if the Arch-bishop of Canterbury himself wants to be a “real” Priest he first needs to be confirmed and then ordained (not “re-ordained” as I mistakenly said yesterday). However, even if you are married, if want to jump on-board with us, we’ll let you become a priest fast-track in the wise words of UDS. That seems, to me, to be utterly inconsistent. If the orders are null and void why on earth make any concession? Example: I am a married Methodist man (non-minister) with a Phd in theology. I want to join the fast track to become an RC priest, can I? Presumably I have roughly the same sacramental power as the Anglican priest (i.e. none). That is what I saw as logically inconsistent in the RC position. (btw the above are rhetorical questions & I am not a married Methodist man).
You make an interesting point re Apostolic succession. The thing Apostolica Curae hangs its theological hat on is Cramner screwing around with the ordination rite. However, even if the Anglican Communion re-instituted the RC rite today in 2002, they still wouldn’t be bishops in the RCC’s eyes because of the Apostolic Succession issue. In the RCC’s eyes, they would STILL be no more a preist than I would be if, say Polycarp, used the “proper” rite to ordain me. Still, I tend to think your point is the more precise one in this ‘chicken or the egg’ discussion, the RCC does not recognize more because the rite (v2.0) stopped making “valid” bishops, rather than the Apostolic Succession issue per se. I think that my point, re the larger thread of “why not unification? well, because of the apostolic succession issue” is still valid. i.e. “OK we’ll unify. First all you Anglican Clergy, from the ABC on down, will need to (literally) prostrate your selves before your local RC bishop and be ordained …”
I am sure it was my dense writing style that obscured the first issue, not sure if we disagree on the second or not …
I’d assume that an incoming priest from another rite would be “fast-tracked” by the RC’s because he (I won’t comment on “she”) already has all the academic training and practical knowledge of pastoral care needed to fulfil the duties and functions of a priest - all that’s needed, from the RC viewpoint, would be actually to make him a priest, via a valid ordination. The same is not necessarily true of a Doctor of Theology, who might have the academic knowledge but not the practical side (or they might want to be sure of his vocation, given that an academic interest isn’t necessarily the same as a “call to the ministry” - I don’t know how these things are assessed). So, I don’t think the RCC is really being inconsistent here - there’s no point spending years teaching an Anglican convert stuff he already knows.
I take your point about apostolic succession, and think we are probably in broad agreement.
What distinguishes an Anglican priest is that he has already had a call to sacramental priesthood broadly as conceived by Roman Catholics, and has responded to it, and he has had training and formation much of which is appropriate to Roman Catholic priesthood. Hence his training and formation can be fast-tracked, and the necessary sacremental ordination can take place fairly quickly.
This is not true of the Methodist layman, however highly qualified academically. In particular he has not experienced a call to ministry in his own church, still less to priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholics. Should he join the Roman Catholic church and aspire to priesthood, no doubt his theological training will get him some credit. But if he is married, he will not be considered a suitable candidate (just as a Roman Catholic who marries and then considers that he is called to priesthood is not considered a suitable candidate).
I do not suggest that even “fast-track” reordination has a serious contribution to make to the prospect of unity between Anglicans and Catholics. I am sure those few Anglican priests who have agreed to be re-ordained (or ordained, depending on your point of view) in the Roman Catholic church had to swallow hard before agreeing, and the prospect of institutional agreement by the Anglican priesthood as a body is not realistic. A necessary condition to unity will be a development of Roman Catholic theology and perhaps a distinction being made between the validity of Anglican orders and their effectiveness (as suggested in this article by Fr John Coventry SJ http://www.aifw.org/journal/95su03.htm). The point about “fast-track” reordination is that it illustrates the high degree of commonality which already exists between Anglicans and Roman Catholics regarding the nature of priesthood.
Actually, if you were unmarried and converted to Catholicism and announced a desire to be ordained, you very likely would be fast-tracked. Your track, however, would be not as fast as an Anglican priest. Anglican theology (in general) is a lot closer to Catholic theology than any Protestant denomination. (And the fact that the Methodists have pretty much separated from the Anglicans moves you outward from that central ring.) I’d guess you’d have to spend a few years in the major seminary making sure that your theology was Roman Catholic before they ordained you, but you would very likely get to skip the minor seminary work (basically college). How much time and effort you would have to expend in the major seminary (the whole four plus years or something less) would probably depend on the local bishop and seminary rector.
If you were married, you would then run into the troubling bit of inconsistency you have already noted. I don’t defend JP II on the issue of women priests; I am certainly not going to defend him on the issue of ordaining married ex-Anglican priests.
Just for what it’s worth, a detailed exploration of Apostolicae Curaefrom a Catholic point of view in the sort of “prove-your-assertions” methodology we use here would find all but one argument as disproven – and that one, depending on a definition of “form” and “matter” for ordinations, would demonstrate that virtually no Roman Catholic clergyman was validly ordained, since the RCC omitted what Apostolicae Curae considers the definitive “matter” of the sacrament for a substantial period during the Dark Ages.
For me, it’s a moot point. My church has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Succession and ordains deacons, priests, and bishops to celebrate the Sacraments as has been the historic tradition of Christianity; if Cardinal Ratziger is displeased with what we do, that’s his own problem and not mine.
Question: does anyone know how the various churches of the Anglican communion deal with an RC priest who wants to become an Anglican priest? Does the Anglican church insist on an ordination by the Anglican rite?
(I used to know a fellow who was an RC priest. He left the Roman Catholic church because he wanted to get married. By the time I knew him, he was an Anglican priest. I never thought to ask him if he had to be ordained again.)
I am pretty sure that the Anglican church has no difficulty accepting the validity and effectiveness of Roman Catholic orders, if only because (a) the Anglican church accepts the need for Apostolic succession, and (b) all the original Anglican ordinations were carried out by people who had been ordained in the Roman Catholic tradition. Hence if Roman Catholic orders are not valid Anglican orders cannot be valid either.
Even at the worst times of anti-Papist sentiment in England, the validity of Roman Catholic orders were never called into question. Legislation aimed at the Pope and those in communion with him always referred to the “Bishop of Rome”, indicating that even those bitterly opposed to him accepted that he was a bishop.
UDS is completely right. Barb and I were friends with a former Franciscan friar who married and joined the Episcopal church, where he was welcomed and a parish in need of a rector found for him. (He and his wife are now Tertiaries in the Anglican Society of St. Francis, as is Barb.)
And of course the Anglican church’s ready acceptance of Catholic orders can only deepen the disappointment Anglicans feel that this stance is not reciprocated.