But, Did You Mean It?

“'Tis not many oaths - That makes the truth, But the plain single vow - That is vowed true.”
-William Shakespeare

Lately, I have been pondering my ordination vows which I took in accordance with the Ordinal of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It’s been but a few short years since my diaconal Ordination in June 2001, the day before the 423rd anniversary of the first use of any office of the Book of Common Prayer on soil that is now part of the fifty states of the United States. Shorter still since being Ordered an Anglican priest one year later on the Feast of St. Columba, in June 2002. It is hard, now, to remember a time when my daily attire was not basic black, or an Army uniform of one sort or another marked with the Cross of Christ.

Given that that these events took place in the warmth of June, rather than the cold of a December weekday in Advent, my thoughts of familiar people, the Mass, the hands imposed, and the vows undertaken took me a bit by surprise. But it was the last bit, the vows taken, that drove my reverie and ultimately this essay. For someone had sent me an article amidst the ordinary e-chaff that touched on vows. It was written by a Roman Catholic priest by the name of Fr. Paul Sullins who works just across the street from where I am doing post-graduate work. It is interesting in that, in the wake of the Apostolic Constitution, the “re-ordination” question has been a frequent topic of discussion amongst my Roman-Catholic colleagues at the Pontifical Faculty where I have been studying for a number of years.

A Weak Affirmation

A former Episcopalian, Fr. Sullins entered the Roman Catholic Church under the Pastoral Provision and teaches at The Catholic University of America. Recently, he penned his reflections on the rationale for absolute ordination of Anglican clergy entering into the full communion of the Catholic Church. In these reflections so thoughtfully sent to me by someone who I know meant well, Fr. Sullins purports to address the concerns of Anglican priests coming into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Apparently, some of these priests take pause or even offense at the prospect of being unconditionally ordained to Roman Catholic orders. According to Fr. Sullins, “[t]his action is perceived to imply a negative evaluation of Anglican ministry or orders, as if they were worthless or perhaps only a pretense.”

I will not repeat Fr. Sullins’s short article, other than to note that the gist of his argument is that one should not conflate or confuse Roman Catholic ordination with Episcopalian ordination. “Surely”, notes the good father, “someone who recognizes the deficiencies of Anglicanism enough to be led to come into full communion with the Roman Church cannot expect that Church to recognize Anglican orders as a rule.” Apart from some casual presumption in that statement, Fr. Sullins goes on to the big difficulty. Even if, as an Anglican, one is “blessed to be ordained by a Catholic bishop in apostolic succession, who spoke the Catholic words with Catholic intent”, how could the Roman Catholic Church ever “decide, in each instance, which Anglican ordinations may be valid (or, technically, licit) and which not?”

How, indeed? Well, the author does admit that Bishop Graham Leonard was conditionally ordained when he became a Roman Catholic priest in the mid-1990s because of the presence of the “Dutch touch” in the form of an Old Catholic bishop at his original ordination. But this did not continue, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome decided that the best course was to ordain all future Anglicans absolutely, so as to resolve any and all possible doubt about the validity of their Roman Catholic orders.

Why was this decision made? Well, in Fr. Sullins’ view, “the overriding concern was consideration for the confidence of the laity in the validity of the central sacrament of the priesthood-the Eucharist-as they would receive it from the hands of the former Anglican priest.” Let see, without regard to whether one might be repeating a valid sacrament, we repeat that sacrament because of potential concerns on the part of lay people who may not even know the priest’s provenance unless he (a) tells them or (b) tips up with his wife. That’s surely a valid reason for sacrilege. Oh, and never mind the Encyclical Apostolica Curiae of Leo XIII declaring Anglican Orders “absolutely null and utterly void.” That’s “strong affirmation” by the Roman Catholic Church of the prior ministry of its former Anglican priests.

Then there is the prayer for a former Anglican now-Roman Catholic ordinand which allows that that “not a few of the sacred actions of the Christian religion as carried out in communities separated from [the Roman Catholic Church] can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as providing access to the community of salvation.” There’s a relief to the former Anglican clergyman who might be fretting over his sacraments—not a few of them may have had an effect.

The Words We Said

So it is that I began to ponder again what may have happened at my diaconal and priestly ordinations-as well as those of Anglican bishops-apart from some dandy liturgy, great music and a nice reception after. Just what was going on? What transpired and what did I pledge my own life to? And, why are so many in Anglican Orders ready to pitch those Orders over the side in the hope that they will be ordained in a new Roman Catholic structure. (We’ll put aside the question of education, formation and those oh so pesky marriage questions on which true believers believe that they are going to be given a pass.)

In the first place, there was the question of Apostolic Succession. After all, 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.

Preface to the Ordinal, 1928 Book of Common Prayer (emphasis added).

So, what we are talking about is continuing Succession through a lawful bishop who, after Imposition of Hands, ordains a man who has been called, tried, examined, and admitted to those orders. Not to be flip, but, it just doesn’t take two Roman Catholic seminary degrees with two years of courses in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (including that bit governing orders), nearly fifteen years of ecclesiastical and religious law practice and qualification as an expert trial witness in church law to say that this looks mighty similar to the requisites of Book IV, Part I, Title VI of the Code. Of course the official version is in Latin, but the English text should be sufficient. But, I digress.

At the heart of the Ordering of an Anglican Deacon lies the following exchange between the candidate and the Bishop. I have italicized a few pertinent points.

DO you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory, and the edifying of his people?
Answer. I trust so.
Bishop. Do you think that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the Canons of this Church, to the Ministry of the same?
Answer. I think so.
Bishop. Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?
Answer. I am so persuaded.
Bishop. Will you diligently read the same unto the people assembled in the Church where you shall be appointed to serve?
Answer. I will.
Bishop. It appertaineth to the Office of a Deacon, in the Church where he shall be appointed to serve, to assist the Priest in Divine Service, and specially when he ministereth the Holy Communion, and to help him in the distribution thereof; and to read Holy Scriptures and Homilies in the Church; and to instruct the youth in the Catechism; in the absence of the Priest to baptize infants; and to preach, if he be admitted thereto by the Bishop. And furthermore, it is his Office, where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the Parish, that they may be relieved with the alms of the Parishioners, or others. Will you do this gladly and willingly?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of God.
Bishop. Will you apply all your diligence to frame and fashion your own lives, and the lives of your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples of the flock of Christ?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you reverently obey your Bishop, and other chief Ministers, who, according to the Canons of the Church, may have the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions?
Answer. I will endeavour so to do, the Lord being my helper.

So it is that an Anglican deacon trusts that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit to execute that Order in the Church for the service of God and the edification of his people. This includes Baptism and assisting with the administration of Holy Communion. The Deacon does so by the help of God and trusting in the Holy Ghost that he is moved to do so. What’s wrong, then, in a little absolute ordination?

When Do You Stop Trusting the Holy Ghost?

When does a man stop trusting the Holy Ghost that he once declared that he was inwardly moved to do? Did he have his fingers crossed when he took the oath? Or, did he simply stop trusting that same Holy Spirit having had hands laid on him and having been given Authority to execute the Office of a Deacon in the Church committed to him In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Did the oath-taker rejecting his original ordination vow in the Holy Catholic Church simply not mean what he said ab initio (i.e. when he made his original profession). Or, did he come to believe later that he really was not inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to have taken the vow in the first place, perhaps because he has come to believe that the Sacrament was invalid or on some other basis.

This is precisely the issue raised by Bishop Charles Grafton in discussing the sacrilege of re-ordination. The bottom line involves several possibilities. First, one was simply lying during the oath and never believed that he was being conferred anything at all. That is pretty startling since the oath involves a profession of trust in the Holy Spirit that what is going on is, in fact, going on. Worse, one did trust the Holy Spirit, but has decided no longer to do so for purposes of getting in the “big Church”. Finally, the possibility is that the person so ordained comes to believe that the “failed experiment” of Anglicanism never conferred a valid order, and that it all was a mistake.

In this latter case, to borrow from the Declaration Dominus Iesus, if you now believe that “this Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, you are obliged to join her right now. Therefore, one should immediately take off the collar, make penance and stop gulling people into thinking that you are a deacon or any other sort of catholic clergy.

In the former case, one is at best a liar or a tragic outright denier of the Holy Ghost, as Bp. Grafton pointed out. You are in the state of exceptionally grave sin, and should make immediate penance lest sudden death overtake you before repenting of an offense against the Holy Ghost. Again, though, you must take off the collar as you have denied your vow.

The Words We Said Next

But let’s turn to what we profess when we are Ordered priests. The charge is more extensive as the range of Sacraments are involved and the oath makes that clear. As well, there are the additional responsibilities and authority conferred.

DO you think in your heart, that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the Canons of this Church, to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood?
Answer. I think it.
Bishop. Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?
Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.
Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
Bishop. Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you be diligent in Prayers, and in reading the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh?
Answer. I will endeavour so to do, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?
Answer. I will apply myself thereto, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you maintain and set forwards, as much as lieth in you, quietness, peace, and love, among all Christian people, and especially among them that are or shall be committed to your charge?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you reverently obey your Bishop, and other chief Ministers, who, according to the Canons of the Church, may have the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.

What Were You Thinking?

The issue remains essentially the same but all that messy doctrine gets involved. If we just agree that the priest has agreed to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture, then there is a major oath problem. What did one think or believe at the time of his priesting? Without rehearsing the range of pious beliefs (and I hold fast to most of them), can we say that belief in the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a soteriological requirement? Even St. Thomas Aquinas had some pretty grave arguments against that first bit, although he believed she was personally sinless. Salvific? I couldn’t say it at the time of my ordination, I can't prove it now, and I can’t demand it of my parishioners.

But what of the oath to “faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God?” To be absolutely ordained is to say that that you haven’t been administering Sacraments or Doctrine. Period. No matter what the spin that a “something” may or may not have happened that was “nice” is a denial of validity. Again, you either were lying at the time of the oath or, having discovered the “fullness of truth” you now live a lie.

The blunt answer is that you aren’t administering real Sacraments, take off the collar and the vestments. Take them off right now. Rome doesn't believe you are administering real Sacraments. And what of the people you claim to serve? Well, Anglican folks who have just as much of a right to be sure of the Sacraments of their priests as do Roman Catholic laity. If you don’t believe them real, have the guts and honesty of Fr. Christopher Phillips, now a successful Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision priest, who took off his Anglican collar when he reached that point. Otherwise, you are committing a spiritual fraud, and there are no two ways about it if you accept Rome’s position. And, it bears reiteration that even under the Apostolic Constitution you must accept all of her doctrine and dogma to get in the club no matter what “secret deal” some purport to exist.

The Words a Few of Us Said

Finally, I took a look at the oath of a traditional Anglican bishop. I’ve only been to two Anglican episcopal consecrations, so I wanted to check on an aging memory. This should give senior clergy on the Trans-Tiberian Railway even more pause.

ARE you persuaded that you are truly called to this Ministration, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this Church?
Answer. I am so persuaded.
Bishop. Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined out of the same Holy Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach or maintain nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same?
Answer. I am so persuaded, and determined, by God's grace.
Bishop. Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the Holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same; so that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of God.
Bishop. Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?
Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; that you may show yourself in all things an example of good works unto others, that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you maintain and set forward, as much as shall lie in you, quietness, love, and peace among all men; and diligently exercise such discipline as by the authority of God's Word, and by the order of this Church, is committed to you?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of God.
Bishop. Will you be faithful in Ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon others?
Answer. I will so be, by the help of God.
Bishop. Will you show yourself gentle, and be merciful for Christ’s sake to poor and needy people, and to all strangers destitute of help?
Answer. I will so show myself, by God’s help.

Send Back the Miter (Or Is It Mitre?)

There you have it-a trinity of promises by the time one is selected to be bishop that he is persuaded that it is the action of the Holy Ghost and the will of Jesus Christ that he is to be a bishop. That’s supposed to be certitude. How does one fall away from that affirmation, that bit of faith? This isn't "oops". It obviously is ever so much more than an “oops”. It is a denial of the ontological change that comes with the Sacrament of Orders. It is a denial of the will of Christ. One cannot deny it, unless, one comes to the belief that the Sacrament is invalid and that he is not a real bishop (or priest, or deacon).

In that case, the Holy Spirit and the will of Christ must have been off on Consecration day, and you need to stop playing about. Send the miter back to the purveyor of ecclesiastical garments from whence it came and be a good and faithful Christian layman. This is precisely what several former Episcopal Church bishops have done (albeit after their retirement checks began their regular appearance). To do otherwise is to mock the people who trust that the ring and the staff and the rest of the get up mean that you are a real bishop.

These words may seem harsh, particularly to the recent “Roman enthusiast”. Ornate words, personal attack, or outright willful denial cannot alter the fact that the Roman Catholic Church holds Anglican Orders invalid, absent some “super, secret, special deal” in which poor old Pope Leo XIII is tossed overboard. If you embrace the Roman Catholic Church, then you must stop functioning as clergy, right now. To do otherwise is to be going over with your doctrinal fingers crossed. To swear an oath without genuinely meaning merely to be a Roman Catholic priest is the most cynical and damning kind of untruth.

Oaths and Vows

We live in a time in which oaths and vows seem to have ever less meaning. In the day, our political leaders pledged to each other their lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor. (The capitalizations weren’t typographical errors.) Now, oaths of office seem as malleable as human desire would make them. We need not even start with vows of Holy Matrimony so lovingly pledged-even “traditional” Anglicans have run roughshod over them. It appears that these oaths and vows no matter how vital or sacred to the good order of society are variously without real substance, taken by those with crossed fingers or supplanted with newer oaths and vows as perceived truth moves one. So be it.

As for me, I know that the Ordination vows I took had real content, and I am certain that the Holy Spirit was helping me along to take them. I think I would have played the coward otherwise, as I couldn’t have imagined such an enormous thing absent God’s strength.

However, I do not, and never have, harbored the illusion that my Anglican ordination made me a Roman Catholic priest. It did, though, make me a catholic priest standing in a long line of the same. When I took my vows, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. The ontological change was palpable, and I have no doubt that I am a priest in valid Orders, administering valid Sacraments. It is for this reason that I could not bring myself to renounce my orders when asked by the Roman Catholic Church—a Church I love, esteem, and in which I have been theologically trained.

This is a position that many of my Roman Catholic brothers, thankfully, understand. Indeed, they are far more sympathetic to the issue and more charitable than the latest crop of “enthusiasts” seem to be able to manage. (I do not use the terms Anglican or Anglo-Catholic for you as you publicly have rejected the substance of those terms to embrace Roman Catholicism at whatever cost.)

For those whose vows are dear to them and, we pray, dear to God, let us honor them and drive on, whether deacon, or priest or bishop. There is work to be about as we are commanded, and we have special answer to make on that Dreadful Day. It will not go well if we are unfaithful to our responsibilities taken on at Ordination.

As for those who would renounce let us simply say, “So go now. Right now.” Be honest to your conscience. Take off your collars and for Heaven’s sake be good Roman Catholics, not the cafeteria sort. There are too many of such already and those even worse.

But this time, this time for once and for always, when you take the oath of submission, or even another set of vows to Orders, for the sake of your soul, say what you mean and mean what you say.