Theologians and churchmen often underestimate the importance of uncertainty and ignorance. This ‘uncertainty factor’ can be as important in practical as in theoretical matters, particularly in practical ecumenical relations.
In sacramental matters people often distinguish ‘validity’ and ‘invalidity’. In practical terms in any given ecclesial body that distinction often reduces to a distinction between ‘recognizable’ and ‘unrecognizable’. That is, a valid sacrament for a given Church or ecclesial body is a sacrament that the body in question recognizes as equivalent in most respects to its own sacraments. The ecclesial body does not assert that other purported acts are ‘invalid’ in the sense of incapable of conveying grace or of being used by God to convey the same grace as a ‘valid’ sacrament. It is difficult to be certain of such a negative. Rather Churches in speaking of sacramental validity intend to emphasize a kind of ecclesial guarantee that the act in question is the sort that God has promised and covenanted to use to convey the sacramental grace in question.
In ecumenical matters, therefore, it is best to avoid judgements of invalidity, where a clear judgement of certain validity cannot be reached or has not yet been reached. Instead, it seems best to say, ‘Our Church has not yet considered the matter of the validity of X’s confirmations’ or ‘The Church at this time does not recognize the ordinations of Y to be the same in effect as ours.’ ‘Not recognized’ does not presume to tell God what he cannot do, but limits itself to what we are able to discern. The lack of recognition may flow from our ignorance, misunderstanding, or prudential belief that an opportune time has not yet arisen to take up the question in a definitive and systematic manner.
The default position of the Church should be to decline to recognize, for example, the validity of an ecclesial body’s holy orders until there is certainty about the matter. The basic principle in sacramental theology, as in all moral matters when a clear duty is in question, is to take the morally safer path. For example, while it is possible that weak tea is adequate for the bestowal of valid baptism, and while it is certain that weak tea should be used if nothing more certainly ‘water’ can be obtained, likewise the minister is obliged to use water rather than tea if water is available. Both the use of weak tea in the absence of water and also the use of water if it is available are mandatory due to the duty to take the morally safer path when bestowing the sacrament of baptism.
In the examples involving baptism there may still be doubts and uncertainties. It is uncertain if weak tea is adequate matter for the valid confection of the sacrament. It may be uncertain if death is so imminent that one cannot wait to obtain pure water rather than tea. It also may be uncertain if a dying person has been baptized or not in the past. But in these cases, the doubts do not alter the appropriate line of conduct, except that they might require that the sacrament be bestowed conditionally: ‘N.N., if thou art not already baptized, I baptize thee in the Name of etc.’
Regarding the necessity of the episcopate for valid ordinations, Anglicans historically can be cited who have held a range of views. The range is usually summarized in three positions: 1. that the episcopate is of the esse or essence and the very being of the Church; 2. that the episcopate is of the bene esse, or well-being, of the Church; and, 3. that the episcopate is of the plene esse, or full well-being or best ordering, of the Church. Or more simply, some have held that episcopal orders are absolutely essential, or very important, or somewhat important.
The proponents of these various positions appeal to a variety of arguments.
The less firmly episcopal positions often argue that in the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods there seems to have been some variety in accepted forms of Church government. The Johannine epistles and Revelation suggest a monarchical episcopate in Asia Minor, as is confirmed in the epistles of Saint Ignatius and the example of Saint Polycarp. The argument continues, however, that the Pauline epistles suggest a more presbyterial and collegial form of local Church government.
One may doubt this characterization of the Pauline Churches. Even if Corinth, for example, had a local presbyterial college, there seems very much a single, decisively authoritative teacher and governor present over that college: Paul himself. In any case, if there really were two models of government at first, the presbyterial model gave way rather quickly to the model of a single bishop presiding over a plurality of presbyters and deacons.
If we assume, nonetheless, that in fact the Pauline Churches, or some of them, had at first presbyter/bishops who ordained their first successors as presbyter/bishops, it does not follow that all subsequent presbyters possess episcopal office. If in some places there were a combined office of presbyter/bishop with collegial leadership, eventually leadership in fact changed to the monarchical, Johannine or Ignatian model. In that case, there is no reason to doubt that there also came a development of distinct ordinations to distinct orders. An early office of priest-bishop articulated into two offices, priests and bishops, with, thereafter, two different ordinations both of which required an ordaining bishop.
The process of development of monarchical episcopacy in the earliest Church is summarized by Richard Hooker in detail in Book VII of Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Even over 400 years later, Hooker’s extensive patristic citations and quotations and his treatment of apparent contrary evidence are impressive. In any case, Hooker’s conclusion is accepted by all classical Anglicans:
[L]et us not fear to be herein bold and preemptory, that if anything in the Church’s government, surely the first institution of bishops was from heaven, was even of God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it. (Laws, VII.v.10)
Hooker does not unchurch all non-episcopal Churches and says that they are more to be pitied than condemned for the loss of the episcopate. But from Hooker onward it is hard to find substantial Anglican arguments against the normative (whether esse, esse bene, or esse plene) character of episcopacy.
Such an interpretation, however, is not the only one that is possible. In some quarters in the Western Church it has been believed that the episcopate differs from priesthood, not in implicit sacramental power, but in canonical and administrative authority. On this theory the bishop is superior to the priest in jurisdictional authority rather than in sacramental order (cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q. 40, Art. 5).
Now if one believes that the Bishop of Rome possesses universal jurisdiction in the Church and is superior to other bishops as the guarantor of the essential unity of the Church, and thus that the Bishop of Rome has the power to create and alter episcopal jurisdictions, it seems that the pope also could in an emergency dispense with other bishops by simply elevating priests to an essentially episcopal office. That is, the Pope might systematically give priests jurisdiction equivalent to that of bishops without episcopal consecration. If bishops are distinguished by jurisdiction, and the Pope has a uniquely universal jurisdiction, it is arguable that the Pope is the only real bishop: all other bishops are merely administrative assistants who exercise a delegated authority which might be delegated without episcopal ordination. Roman Catholics have not adopted this possibility by abolishing the episcopate, but it suggests a kind of downgrading of the sacramental essence of the episcopate that might help explain the fate of the episcopate in most of the ecclesial bodies flowing from the Protestant Reformation.
Such are some of the arguments for a lower view of episcopacy:
- Biblical. There is a presbyterian, collegial, Pauline model contrary to the monarchical model.
- Historical. The monarchical episcopate, though overwhelmingly dominant for more than a millennium, nonetheless was not unique for a century or two in the ancient Church.
- Theological and definitional. The term ‘bishop’ refers not to an essential, sacramental reality that is absolutely necessary for the Church’s being, but rather refers to jurisdiction and a regulatory authority that provide for good order in a hierarchical world.
At this point traditional Anglicans may appeal to the uncertainty factor and say that the debates and differences just noted here do not need to be resolved by us. Instead, we may simply decline to do other than take the morally safer path, which requires without exception ordination by bishops who themselves stand in a certain, apostolic, and episcopal succession. This position is exactly that of the Anglican Ordinal:
It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church, ‑‑ Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by public Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordination.
This text from the Preface to the Ordinal does not presume to declare invalid all non-episcopal ordinations. The Preface, however, declines to recognize in theory any non-episcopal ordination when it says that none shall be ‘accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church’ without episcopal ordination. The Preface equally refuses in practice to recognize any effects of such non-episcopal ordinations when it forbids the execution of any episcopal, priestly, or diaconal ‘Functions’ without episcopal ordination.
The Ordinal’s position on non-episcopal ordinations clearly appeals to good law and order (‘lawful Authority’, ‘lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon’). The Ordinal does not, however, rest its argument on law and order alone. In addition, the Ordinal asserts that English Church law in this regard is based on intrinsic and substantial truth: the clear meaning of ‘Holy Scripture and ancient Authors…from the Apostles’ time’, which the Anglican Churches have the explicit ‘intent…may be continued’. [i] Church law in many matters can be set aside or dispensed. The clear teaching of Holy Scriptures, the Fathers, and universal Church practice are indispensable.
In summary, then, it is perfectly permissible for Anglicans to argue that non-episcopal ordinations may have the same effects as episcopal ordinations. It is not permissible, however, to argue that this theoretical argument may lead to the recognition of non-episcopal ordinations.
In ecumenical terms, then, suppose an ecclesial body without a recognizable succession of episcopal consecrations wishes to unite organically with the Continuing Anglican Church or, alternatively, wishes to enter a state of full communion (communio in sacris) with that Church without organic union. What should be our response?
There seems no need to insist on acceptance of the idea that episcopal ordination is simply of the esse of the Church. We have already noted that many Anglicans historically have held lower views of the necessity of episcopal ordination. Likewise, we have already noted that some medieval Roman Catholic theories of orders could lead to the conclusion that, though deeply untraditional, presbyterial ordinations under some circumstances might be valid.
Such considerations suffice to cover a history of presbyterial ordinations and, likewise, suffice to permit positive opinions concerning the validity of such presbyterial ordination in some circumstances.
Nonetheless, the Ordinal, the good order of the Church, a virtually unbroken practice of 1400 years prior to the Protestant Reformation, and the ecumenical imperative to pursue dialogue with Roman, Orthodox, and Oriental Christians, all impel us to the same conclusion: full sacramental unity is not possible without practical acceptance of episcopal ordinations only.
[i] This direct and unambiguous declaration of an explicit intention to continue apostolic, patristic, medieval, and pre-Reformation holy orders, is glaringly absent from Leo XIII’s consideration of Anglican intentions regarding such Orders in his encyclical, Apostolicae Curae. Leo, in an astonishing exercise in eisegesis, infers what the Ordinals intend while ignoring their actual, clear, obvious, and most important statement of intention. Leo’s argument concerning the form of the Ordinal is just as flawed as his argument concerning intention, but that is another topic.
Anglican Catholic Liturgy and Theology 