Help me build more bridges between Rome and Anglicanism!

Hi, I'm Sean Luke! I'm an aspiring-theologian working within the Anglican tradition. I recently was contacted by Wipf and Stock with an offer of publication. I'm in the process of writing a book called "Apostolica Curae is Null and Void". In "Apostolica Curae", Rome declared Anglican holy orders null and void. In this book, I argue that the grounds upon which Rome made her declaration are in fact plagued with historical error. My purpose in this book is to re-open the question of the validity of Anglican holy orders in Rome's eyes so as to open ecumenical pathways for dialogue between orthodox Anglicans and Roman Catholics. In an ideal world, if my argument is successful, we'd take one step towards bridging our divides and being able to celebrate at the table together. If *any* progress towards this vision were made through my book, I'd be *so* thrilled. Here is a table of contents:

Introduction

Here, I give a very general overview of Apostolica Curae, and flesh out its arguments. I also trace the response given in Saepius Officio, and the responses and counter-responses given over the year. I argue, with Francis Clark, that the key issue really centers down on the “defect of intention”, since the “defect of form” depends on establishing the “defect of intention” in the structure of the argument. I show that this must be the case, lest Roman rite ordinations be counted invalid as well. This allows me to focus squarely on the question of what the Anglican liturgy intends in the consecration of the Eucharist.

Chapter 1 – Effectual Signification: The 16th and 17th Century Doctrine of the Eucharist

In this chapter, I examine twenty figures (and 17 Anglican divines) from the 16th and 17th centuries in order to find common threads in the articulation of the Eucharist. I find that there was, in fact, a fairly consistent doctrine of the Eucharist among the 16th and 17th Century Anglican divines. I argue that the Anglican Reformers believed in a Eucharistic sacrifice in the sense that the patristic fathers believed in it: the Eucharist sacramentally presents the sacrifice of Christ, such that the full remission of sins are communicated via the bread and wine.

Chapter 2 – Effectual Signification and the Denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass

Given Chapter 1, I examine the nature of the Anglican critique of the sacrifice of the Mass. I show that this must be understood in the context of the system of merit, and argue that the primary sources bear this out. Hence, Anglicans objected to the sacrifice of the Mass insofar as “sacrifice” communicates the performance of a sacrificial work by which merit is gained and applied to remit the temporal debts of punishment due to sin (hence the frequent repetition of the condemnation of the sacrifice “for the quick and the dead”). Thus, the denial of the validity of Anglican orders can only be made if the differences between the Anglican sacrifice and the Roman notion of sacrifice are maintained—i.e. if a valid priesthood requires the notion of the system of merit or a notion of transubstantiation.

Chapter 3 – Does the Priesthood Depend on the System of Merit?

In this chapter, I argue that the Priesthood cannot be said to depend on a notion of a system of merit given the acceptance of Eastern Orthodox holy orders. I examine Eastern Orthodox theologies of the Eucharist, and show that the Roman Catholic system of merit is utterly foreign to their understanding of the Eucharist. However, one finds the acceptance of something like transubstantiation in Eastern Orthodox sources. Hence, I pivot to Chapter 4.

Chapter 4 – Is Transubstantiation Required for a Sacrificial Priesthood?

Here, I rebuff the claim that was made by Cardinal Ralph Vaughn: transubstantiation is essential to an understanding of a sacrificial priesthood. I show that if this were the case, then no one’s orders can be thought of as valid, since key patristic fathers explicitly rejected the doctrinal content (of course, not the term, but the meaning of the term) of transubstantiation. Thus, the early notion of the Priesthood evidently did not consider an understanding of transubstantiation as essential to the priestly function.

Chapter 5 – Anglican and Patristic Liturgies Compared

Here, I compare the Eucharistic liturgies of the sixteenth and seventeenth century Anglicans with the liturgies of the early church, arguing that, in fact, Anglican eucharistic theology is closer (but not identical) to many (not all) of these early liturgies. Hence, what became the Anglican view was part of the patristic heritage alongside other views of the Eucharist.

Chapter 6 – Anglican Ordination Rites and Early Ordination Rites

Here, I compare the ordination rites of the 1549, 1551, 1559, and 1662 with ordination rites in the early church. I argue that there is sufficient similarity to show that the theology of ordination expressed in the Anglican sources has robust precedent in the patristic sources.

Chapter 7 – A Summary Critique of Apostolica Curae

In this chapter, I bring together the pieces from the book and synthesize my critique of Apostolica Curae. I argue that there was a doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice present in the Anglican divines, such that the argument of Apostolica Curae rests only on a strawman. I then argue that, given the sources above, the notion of a Eucharistic sacrifice beyond its sacramental re-presentational function was not clearly defined. Indeed, there wasn’t even a consistent and clear definition of a Eucharistic sacrifice present in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. Thus, if the Anglican doctrine is dismissed as invalidating the priesthood, Rome would need to surrender her recognition of Eastern orders and even her own orders.

Conclusion – Paths for Ecumenical Dialogue

Here, I outline three implications for ecumenical dialogue. First, Apostolica Curae must be repudiated, and the question re-opened. This will not entail an immediate acceptance of Anglican orders, since the existence of women’s ordination to the priesthood and episcopate complicates the issue. Rather, it simply means that the question must be re-opened and re-examined, and (I’d hope) that a blanket condemnation of Anglican orders cannot be issued. Second, if Anglican orders in some quarters are accepted as valid, then this will allow for a more robust dialogue to open between these apostolic churches. Third, the implications of the falsity of Apostolica Curae will need to be examined. Some have claimed that it was issued with ex-cathedra level authority. If this is the case, then the implications of an ex-cathedra document resting on a demonstrably flawed argument will need to be thought through. Ultimately, I hope this advances the cause of the English Reformation in establishing a path to recognize the apostolic church’s subsistence in many swaths of the Anglican world.