Hi Mel,

Thank you for your comment. Perhaps I am missing a significant point that you are making, but what is not clear to me is why male only clergy is incompatible with catholicity? In other words, what is it about catholiciity as understood by the Anglican communion that necessitates that the priesthood should be open to both genders? Perhaps coming at this from a different angle, I might ask, how is the term catholic or universal being used in this context? Even with the case of qualified male-only priests we still have some who are excluded (i.e. unqualified males).

I am certainly not suggesting that I have an argument for the male only position as understood by the Roman Catholic Church–as I have never heard this argument articlulated. I have heard various evangelicals point to certain texts (e.g., I Tim 2); however, I find most of those interpretations to be problematic. For example, some say that on the basis of I Tim 2 that because Eve was deceived all women therefore are more easily deceived than men; hence, women should not teach men in the church. That strikes me as seriously flawed on a number of levels and more or less absurd. I do not imagine the RCC to go that route, as they allow women to teach priests theology in their institutions. However, I have never had the RCC position sufficiently explained, and that is in part what I hope will manifest from this discussion. (I am sure that there is an argument–the point is that I simply haven’t encountered it). The following post will present briefly some of the exegetical alternatives given by Wright to passages such as I Tim 2, I Cor 11, 14 etc., so stay tuned.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

Cynthia, do you mean to ask in your first P why the Anglican Communion’s decision to include both genders in Priestly duties is incompatible with RC catholicity? I spent some time with Cardinal Kaspar’s article and the response, and I don’t see the Anglican bishops saying that male only priesthood is incompatible with catholicity, but I do see Kaspar saying that if the CofE introduces female bishops then that will be a definite block to catholicity with the Anglican communion. Simply put, his argument stems from the notion of the bishop as the pleroma/fullness of the church. If RC’s can never share communion with Anglican bishops because as women they can never enter into communion with Rome, then they’ll never be able share communion with the entire Anglican Communion.

Mel, Regarding Bishop Wright’s use of John Zizioulas, I think it was fitting that they included him, but not because he is a contemporary ecumenical theologian. Rather, RC ecclesiologist like Paul McPartlan have made significant use of notions from Zizioulas in attempting to re-establish communion with the Orthodox churches. Further, McPartlan made a connection in previous publications between Zizioulas and the Ressourcement theologians, particularly de Lubac. Thus, Wright’s inclusion of Zizioulas poses an especially difficult connection for the current RC leadership, that being between the CofE argument and the teaching made by the current pontiff’s spiritual and theological mentors (de Lubac, Congar, Balthasar, etc..). If Wright, Williams, and Co. can establish that what they’re doing with women bishops, and more importantly how they understanding catholicity, is somehow an extension, albeit a British one, of the work of the Ressourcement during the second Vatican Council, then they will have not only established another catholic lineage for themselves (hence, tradition), but they will have done so in Benedict’s very own backyard.

[A general comment--not directed at anyone in particular]

I didn’t address the following issues directly in my post, but the citations below raise issues that to my mind must be addressed if there is to be any forward motion in the continued dialogue between the RCC and the AC. Interestingly, I see more continuity between the Anglican and Lutheran and Reformed (that is, in their classical expressions) ways of doing theology, than with a distinctively Roman way. See my posts on Oberman and Scripture and Tradition:
http://percaritatem.com/?s=%22Heiko+Oberman+on+Scripture+and+Tradition%22 ).

The question posed in paragraph 1 of the document is to my mind an excellent question, and I would like to know how the RCC would respond. The document reads,

“[i]n relation to this, we would have liked to press him further on the question of the development of doctrine, recalling the words of Dei Verbum II.8 ‘There is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down [from the apostles]. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (cf Luke 2:19,51), through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfilment in her.’ What are the criteria by which some developments (some growths in understanding, as it were) are seen as legitimate – the adoption of compulsory celibacy, a distinctively monastic discipline, for all ordained priests or the Marian Dogmas of 1854 and 1952, for example – while of others, like the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate, Cardinal Kasper declares that ‘the Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to [revise its current position]‘”?

The Anglican bishops likewise make a good point when they say that on the one hand Rome via the VII documents say in theory that the AC has a special place among the Protestant ecclesial communities; however, in practice this seems somewhat empty. That is, in light of the still standing statement by Pope Leo XIII in his 1896 encyclical, Anglican orders are null and void. So if Anglican orders are already null and void in the eyes of Rome, how does consecrating female bishops make things worse (that is, more “null and void”)? The Anglican bishops go on to ask why the “intention” of the Eastern Churches to reunion is given a higher place than the intention for unity of Anglicans and other Protestants. “Rome regards the Eastern Orthodox as a ‘church’ on the grounds, in that document, that they ‘objectively intend reunion’ with Rome. Their intention is the ground of Rome’s recognition – not their historic episcopate – but that same intention is to be found in the dialogue statements of Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists. And Ut Unum Sint (1995) continues to regard unity as union, however gently expressed, with the Bishop of Rome.”

The fifth paragraph is integrally related to the first paragraph and again raises some very important questions that must be answered if this dialogue is to continue in a fruitful way, viz.

“Faced with Rome’s charge that Anglican innovations might make a projected unity more difficult, even those in the Vatican most concerned with patrolling the boundaries must recognise that to many Anglicans it seems that this charge could be levelled the other way round. The dogmas relating to the papacy (1870) and to Mary (1950) remain real obstacles for many who find it difficult to recognise them as developments in any sense from scripture and the tenets of the early church, and the recent work of ARCIC has not managed to find a pathway to help the churches travel together in these areas. The ‘filioque’ clause in the Creed is to this day regarded by Eastern Orthodox Christians as an unwarranted Roman addition to the creed of the universal church. Anglicans will naturally ask by what criteria Rome claims the right to introduce potentially divisive innovations in some areas, while advising Anglicans against developing the practice, rather than altering the doctrine of the church, in others. In what sense would ordaining women to the episcopate alter the doctrine of the church? We note in this context that when Cardinal Kasper refers to Cyprian on the unity of the bishops he fails to point out that Cyprian was writing explicitly about the collegial unity of all bishops over against the possibility that the Bishop of Rome might tell the others what to do.”

I well remember the Wright/Stancliffe article. You can find my response to it here (scroll down to article #XVI).

It is important to keep in mind that Anglicanism really does not have an ecclesiology; it is searching for one, and it has been searching for one ever since Henry VIII decided that the Church of England did not need a Pope. There are as many Anglican ecclesiologies as there are Anglicans. Hence when Bishops Wright and Stancliffe talk about what Anglicans believe about the Church and communio, it all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that the authors find themselves borrowing the eucharistic ecclesiology of an Orthodox theologian is particularly ironic, given the fact that the Church which has generated such profound reflections on Eucharist and Church is adamantly opposed to the ordination of women to priesthood.

The Catholic position on the male priesthood is like the Catholic position on the papacy: the Catholic Church believes that both are instituted by Christ. They are therefore nonnegotiable givens for the Church’s sacramental and ecclesiological reflection. This can make argument with the Magisterium very frustrating for Protestants and Orthodox, as well as for Catholics; but the Catholic Church is convinced that both the male priesthood and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome belong to the essential structure of the Church as ordained by the risen Lord. The Church simply does not have the authority to alter either institution.

One can of course offer reasons on behalf of the male priesthood and the papacy. These reasons may or may not be persuasive, yet even if convincing, they do not ultimately determine the Church’s obedience. Archbishop Michael Ramsey was once asked if the historic Episcopate belonged to the esse or the bene esse of the Church. He replied, “It belongs to the esse of the Church because it clearly does not belong to the bene esse.”

Take a look at Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. John Paul’s argument is principally one of authority. Hence its conclusion:

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Wright and Stancliffe would no doubt reply that the divine institution of the male priesthood is not plainly and unequivocally advanced in Holy Scripture, at least as read through the lens of critical exegesis. But since the Catholic Church does not identify, without remainder, the apostolic deposit of faith with the “plain” reading of Scripture, this criticism does not ultimately touch the Catholic position.

Cynthia, I do not think it is necessary to make a decision, either for or against, the two-source theory. The precise relation between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition remains an open question in the Catholic Church. In either case, we are left with the same problem.

The question of the ordination of women to the priesthood is a good test case. The Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox Church, believes that the male priesthood is ordained by Christ. She finds this institution “somewhere” in the deposit of faith and is not intimidated when critical exegetes cannot find a unequivocal reference to this institution in the written text. It’s there and can be found there, if Scripture is read with the mind of the Church. And if you push the question “Prove it to me!” I will probably end up replying something like “It’s part of the deposit of faith because the Church says it’s there.” The buck has to stop somewhere, and for the Catholic it stops with the Magisterium, i.e., with those who have the sacramental-ecclesial authority to determine the content of the apostolic revelation.

I am not surprised, of course, that Bishop Wright is unable to find the institution of the male priesthood in the Scripture. He is, after all, an evangelical. He may be one of the most interesting biblical scholars around, but he remains an evangelical. Since he does not share a Catholic understanding of eucharistic sacrifice, transubstantiation, priesthood, sacrament, icon, and sacred tradition, he will never be able to “see” through the written text to the truth to which Scripture witnesses, at least in this one area. He simply lacks the necessary hermeneutical equipment and spiritual training.

Dear Fr. Kimmel,

I do not think that my questions constitute a “prove it to me” mentality. I am quite comfortable with starting with the premises of revelation and with the idea of impenetrable mysteries of the faith. What I am pointing out and the issue that I see the document raising is the fact of two distinct conceptions of the relation between Scripture and Tradition.

Secondly, it is not clear how your last paragraph moves the conversation forward. It seems to amount to saying–N.T. Wright is not a Roman Catholic; hence, N.T. Wright does not see things like a Roman Catholic. That is not a very informative statement.

Cynthia

Cynthia, my apology if you took me comment in anyway polemical. “Prove it to me” was simply my shorthand description of the Wright/Stancliffe citation that you quoted. It was not in any way directed to your comments nor intended to be derogatory. In fact, I consider “prove it” to be a perfectly reasonable request.

In the end, I really see the ordination question terminating precisely in the assertion of a dogmatic claim by the Catholic Church and such assertions are always frustrating for those who disagree with them. Catholics declare that Christ has restricted to the priesthood to males; Anglicans, at least the majority of them, presently declare that he hasn’t, though a hundred years ago they would have agreed with Catholics on this matter. Heck if I know how to resolve that debate or push it forward.

Regarding the second paragraph of my previous comment, I do believe that it pushes the discussion forward, because it raises the question “Who is able to properly discern and identify the apostolic deposit of faith?” The catholic answer: only those who have been properly traditioned in and formed by the catholic faith. I do not for a moment believe that the catholic faith can be identified, for example, by the critical exegesis of Holy Scripture. Only those who grasp the catholic faith in its wholeness will read the Bible rightly and truly. I acknowledge the seeming arrogance of this claim. I am certainly not asserting that “I” am properly traditioned in the faith. I am simply asserting that this traditioning is what is required for the proper theological and spiritual reading of the written Word of God. I do not think this is an exclusively Catholic construal. One finds Protestants such as Stanley Hauerwas, Lesslie Newbiggin, and Thomas Torrance saying similar things.

Daniel,

Thanks for drawing out the significance of Wright and Stancliffe’s reference to Zizioulas. That’s very helpful for seeing some of the undercurrent happening in the article.

Fr. Kimel,

How soon does the buck stop at the Magisterium? I can’t perceive from your last post the extent to which the Catholic Church can benefit from scholarship done outside her own walls, if at all–particularly in regard to the question at hand regarding women’s ordination. I’m very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this topic.

Cynthia,

Thanks for the link. That’s quite kind of you–I really appreciate.

Regarding catholicity at the table, I suppose I’m using ‘celebrate’ as the verb form of ‘celebrant’, the one who consecrates the bread and wine, and ‘participate’ to refer to all who come to the table. In this way, I’m suggesting that male-only priesthood might pose a barrier to catholicity–in many Anglican Churches, to my understanding, only priests and bishops may consecrate the sacrament. As you pointed out, Christ is the new way of being human, not the new way of being male. I’m wondering how the barrier between ordaining qualified males while not ordaining qualified females works out for all people in all positions at the table–is it possible for there to be catholicity when there’s a barrier down gender lines regarding who might act as celebrant?

I’m quite undecided on how catholicity and ordained ministry work out together, which might owe to the lack of clarity in some of my comments here.

I can’t perceive from your last post the extent to which the Catholic Church can benefit from scholarship done outside her own walls, if at all–particularly in regard to the question at hand regarding women’s ordination.

Mel, you raise a good question and I doubt I have a good answer. Clearly the Catholic Church does benefit, and benefits greatly, from scholarship and theological reflection from outside her walls. At least in theory, she welcomes truth from all quarters. The Catholic Church has been enriched by her dialogue with Orthodox and Protestant ecumenical partners. The Lutheran/Catholic agreement on justification, e.g., witnesses to her enrichment through engagement with other traditions.

But that “enrichment” must stop when it challenges or denies elements of the apostolic deposit of faith. At that point it is the Church’s duty to protect that which she has received, and on the question of the male priesthood, she has made a definitive judgment. One can debate at length the precise status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but I don’t think that one can seriously question that the question has been definitively decided by the Magisterium (see my blog articles on the issue). In the mind and judgment of the Catholic Church, ordination to the episcopate and presbyterate is reserved exclusively for men. To alter this practice is to depart from apostolic practice and disrupt the symbolic structure of the Church (see Sara Butler’s The Catholic Priesthood and Women).

Anglicanism has historically proclaimed itself as a catholic Church. Whether this is a plausible claim may be debated, but it is certainly true that Anglicanism has understood itself to be catholic. At the same time, it has not claimed for itself an exclusive catholicity. And here is the challenge. The Anglican Church cannot plausibly assert catholic identity and at the same time adopt innovations that are rejected by the wider communion of catholic Churches. As one of the more thoughtful Anglican bloggers puts it:

“Being thus only a part, but a part that exists to call the wider whole ad fontes, the Anglican Communion has no more authority to alter basic patterns of catholic faith and practice than does the Episcopal Church. To do so is to act as if it were we, and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, that summed up in ourselves the fullness of the catholic church. It is to claim that we possess the authority of the whole, even as we claim to be only a part, which simply makes no sense.”

Here, I propose, is where Bishops Stancliffe and Wright went wrong in their defense of women’s ordination. They want to wrap themselves in the mantle of catholicity, while at the same time claiming the right to innovate–always, of course, in the name of the gospel–without accountability to the Church catholic. And this is why, as Cardinal Kasper noted over a year ago, the special ecumenical partnership between Anglicanism and the Catholic Church is dissolving.

“I am not surprised, of course, that Bishop Wright is unable to find the institution of the male priesthood in the Scripture. He is, after all, an evangelical. He may be one of the most interesting biblical scholars around, but he remains an evangelical. Since he does not share a Catholic understanding of eucharistic sacrifice, transubstantiation, priesthood, sacrament, icon, and sacred tradition, he will never be able to “see” through the written text to the truth to which Scripture witnesses, at least in this one area. He simply lacks the necessary hermeneutical equipment and spiritual training.”

Father Kimmel,
By now you’ve probably figured out that I’m largely Balthasarian in my approach to the majority of issues. So, my distaste for your perspective, quoted above, will be of little surprise to you That is, considering Balthasar’s “catholic” use of protestants like Barth, Bonhoeffer, etc., and “heretical” figures like Ps-Denis, Goethe, etc.. Yet, I don’t think Balthasar’s approach is of finding the truth in those outside of the RC circle or his charity to those outside that circle is unique to him.

The councils themselves are in many cases appropriations of logical systems from “outside the circle” (e.g. Greek metaphysics!). Theology, ESP. Roman Catholic theology has never benefited from dismissing arguments in toto on the grounds that they’re not part of the RC Boys club. For instance, the demise of certain RC stains of theology – neoscholasticism, in particular – can be blamed largely on the arrogance and insularity practiced by most RC seminary professors at the turn of the 20th c. I have in mind here particularly B. Garigou-Legrange, who not 100 years ago was arguably the most influential RC theologian of his time. Yet, today he’s barely read, completely ignored in Thomistic critical scholarship, and a nobody to new theology students, all for the very reason that he tried to use the magesterium’s power instead of quality arguments in his attempt to keep “modernity” (as he understood it) out of Thomistic scholarship.

Fr. Kimmel, let me be clear about my reference to Balthasar. I was attributing his “catholic” use of figures, always with the utmost charity, by bringing their ideas to Christ – all truth is Christs truth. I think these sort of dialogues could learn from his charity and patience with the thinkers with which he was in dialogue.

I find your presentation to be decidedly not Balthasarian in that you seem largely unwilling to engage certain ideas on the grounds of their being “evangelical” – this would have precluded Balthasar’s writing of the Theology of Karl Barth. It is one thing to point out that Wright’s positions are evangelical by first identifying what you mean by evangelical and then engage them will full muster – this would be Balthasar’s approach – and another to call them “evangelical” and dismiss them as cogent. In one respect, I imagine even Pope Benedict himself would want to identify with the term evangelical. Surely the Church has an evangelical role. You are unclear in calling him an evangelical without clarifying your terms and specifying how being “evangelical” commits him to one point or another without reserve.

Furthermore, and I think this is of the utmost importance when we speak about clarifying our terms, the majority of American Evangelicals are distinctly opposed to Wright on women’s ordination. So, it is not at all clear how Wright’s “evangelicalism” over-determines this issue and his conclusions on it, nor that one must be either evangelical or catholic, as if the two are mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, “Thomas Torrance, Robert Jenson, George Lindbeck, Lesslie Newbiggin, and Michael Polanyi” allow for a notion of paradigm shifts in cultural thinking that seems to be much different from what you mean by being formed by the Roman Catholic tradition as a means of opening oneself to Real Truth as distinct to not being formed by the RC tradition. I find it interesting that your views on hermeneutics are shaped (in toto, it seems) by Protestant theologians.

On the question of what Anglican accountability might look like, I refer to the recent speech by Archbishop Mouneer Anis to the House of Bishops.

The real question is whether serious theological accountability is any longer possible for Anglicans. We are not talking abstract theology. The past thirty years haven seen Anglicans making decisions of import that have both broken the unity of the Anglican Communion and distanced them from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Anglican Churches have acted as if they enjoyed the authority of the catholic whole, even though they admit that they do not possess an exclusive catholicity. The result has been theological chaos and ecclesial disintegration.

In his special ecumenical dialogue with Anglicanism, the Catholic Church has taken for granted the creedal and catholic commitments of Anglicanism. It is slowly realizing that it can no longer assume a deep unity of faith and practice. Hence the warning of Cardinal Kasper to the English House of Bishops last year.

Dear Dan D.,

I meant to write this earlier, but I forgot. I’m so glad that you’ve joined us!

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I think your statement as to “whether serious theological accountability is any longer possible for Anglicans. We are not talking abstract theology. The past thirty years haven seen Anglicans making decisions of import that have both broken the unity of the Anglican Communion…” is fair and does take us more to the center of the issues at hand. This, as well as the failure of the AC to act in a disciplinary way with regard to serious theological errors prior to the 2003 event is in my opinion what is driving much of the “conservative” reaction (of which I am sympathetic in many ways, as I have stated before).

I do though agree with Daniel that your posts with regard to N.T. Wright and they way that you seem to be using “evangelical” in connection with Wright is puzzling and unclear.

When Daniel writes,”the majority of American Evangelicals are distinctly opposed to Wright on women’s ordination. So, it is not at all clear how Wright’s ‘evangelicalism’ over-determines this issue and his conclusions on it, nor that one must be either evangelical or catholic, as if the two are mutually exclusive,” I tend to agree. For example, ironically in the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), many evangelicals think that Wright is too Catholic in his views of justifcation, ecclesiology etc.–go figure. Also, I have a number of RC friends who specifically think of themselves as evangelical Catholics–as an example, see–http://www.evangelical-catholicism.com/. I understand that you are not suggesting that Wright lacks in intelligence etc., but I still am unclear as to what you mean when you say, “He [Wright] reads the Scripture as an evangelical, not as a catholic.” This seems to equate as I suggested previously to Wright is an evangelical. Wright is not a Roman Catholic. Hence, he does not does not agree with every (official) point of doctrine espoused by Roman Catholic. Again, that seems fairly obvious. You have responded in an attempt to clarify that Wright is not properly tradition-ed in the Roman Catholic faith, but what does that mean? If we could get a better understanding on this latter question, I think that the dialogue will indeed move forward. There do seem to be a number of areas in which Wright would be in great agreement with the RCC and her teachings, yet as you point out Wright would not agree with e.g., transubstantiation (although I would be surprised if he denied the real presence). From my very limited perspective, here it seems that at least one of the major reasons for the disagreement has to do with the fact that transubstantiation has not been proclaimed as an (infallible) dogma for the AC (of course there is no magisterium in the AC–but that brings us back to the starting point, viz., Wright is not a RC–of course he does not believe in the infallibility of the magisterium. In mind opinion, this doesn’t mean that Wright is anti-tradition (as it seems that we are all part of some tradition), but it does mean (at least) that Wright does not embrace every aspect of RCC dogma (which again seems obvious).

Thank you (and everyone else) for your continued engagement and participation in this thread.

Cynthia

Father Kimmel, we will have to remain in disagreement about NT Wright’s following re women’s ordination in evangelical protestant churches in the United States. However, let my last word be this: current statistics show that only a profound minority of churches and denominations in the US agree to women’s ordination. It goes without saying that those most opposed to it among protestants fall into the evangelical camp (with Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopals largely assenting to it). IF it were the case that NT Wright had the following among Evangelicals in this issue that you seem to think that he has, then one would wonder why it has not influenced a change in those evangelical churches.

“What is this difference that causes them to read the Bible so differently? This is the question that I think we need to be addressing.”

I would be interested in your own answer to this question. I imagine you have quite an insight considering your own experiences pre-and post reception by the RC. Although, I still don’t buy that harsh dualism between the two that you set up right from the get-go. Granted, there are differences, and they’re important. But difference need not be a violent and exclusionary factor.