APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION AND ECUMENISM

by
Rev. Adrian SHARP

Ecumenism – DCA 6396

Prof. Patrick COGAN, SA

Faculty of Canon Law

Saint Paul University
Ottawa
2011

1
 2

ABBREVIATIONS

AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis

ASS Acta Sanctae Sedis

c. canon

cc. canons

CD SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, decree Christus Dominus

FLANNERY1 FLANNERY, A. (gen. ed.), Vatican Council II, vol. 1

LG SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, dogmatic constitution Lumen

gentium

UR SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, decree Unitatis redintegratio

 3

The issue of apostolic succession is central to any ecumenical discussion and

the work towards visible reunion of the Christian Churches and ecclesial

communities, especially working towards the goal of currently divided Christians

being able to share in a common eucharist1 The doctrine of apostolic succession goes

right back to the ministry of Jesus Christ, and the belief that he chose apostles and

entrusted to them a mission. Filled with the Holy Spirit, the apostles would take the

message of Jesus and be his witnesses to the ends of the world. 2 The doctrine of

apostolic succession asserts that, just as Christ chose the first apostles, they in turn

chose successors to continue the ministry entrusted to them, and that this succession

of apostolic ministry has continued to our own day, in an unbroken tradition. 3 In other

words, there has been an uninterrupted series of episcopal laying-on of hands starting

with the apostles.”4 The importance of the apostolic mission is clearly stated in

Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism:

For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the

universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of
salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of
which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all
the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth

1
“Five main understandings of apostolic succession are currently being advocated. Some are
radically opposed to the very concept of succession. Others insist on applying apostolic succession to
the transmission of doctrine alone. Still others regard the ministry in general as an integral part of the
succession. Those belonging to ‘catholic’ confessions insist more specifically on episcopal apostolic
succession. Finally, Roman Catholics add to the definition the view that the pope is the head of the
college of bishops.” Carlos Alfredo STEGER, Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and
Oscar Cullmann, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, 20, Berrien Springs, MI,
Andrews University Press, 1995, p. 42.
2
Acts 1:8.
3
Pope Pius XII treats of apostolic succession in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi,
especially paragraphs 25-42 [these paragraph numbers refer to the text on www.vatican.va]. PIUS XII,
encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, in AAS, 35 (1943), pp. 193-248, English
translation in BLUETT, Joseph J., The Mystical Body of Christ, An Encyclical Letter Issued June 29,
1943, by Pope Pius XII under the title Mystici Corporis: Introductory Analysis, Study Outline, Review
Questions, Selected Bibliography, New York, NY, The America Press, 1943, pp. 13-20 [in this text,
paragraphs 32-53].
4
Carlos Alfredo STEGER, Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and Oscar
Cullmann, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, 20, Berrien Springs, MI,
Andrews University Press, 1995, p 50. (= STEGER, Apostolic Succession).
 4

the one Body of Christ into which all those should be incorporated
who belong in any way to the people of God.5

The Roman Catholic teaching on apostolic succession is clearly set forth in

chapter three of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium.6 The teaching is repeated in Vatican II’s

Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church Christus Dominus.7 Carlos

Steger points out that the “term ‘successor/s’ appears 37 times in the documents of the

Second Vatican Council, 22 times in connection with the bishops, and 15 times

referring to the pope. Similarly, the word ‘succession’ is found 8 times, of which 7

refer to bishops, and 1 alludes to the pope.”8 Various things flow from apostolic

succession. The Roman Catholic Church believes that a bishop in apostolic succession

validly ordains other bishops and priests. This therefore leads Catholics to believe that

these validly ordained ministers may also validly celebrate the sacraments. Most

particularly, the eucharist is valid when celebrated by a validly ordained priest. Canon

900 of the Code of Canon Law states: “The minister who is able to confect the

sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.” 9

As the Vatican II documents attest, the bishops in apostolic succession, are the chief

5
UR, no. 3, English translation in FLANNERY1, p. 456.

6
LG, nn. 18-29, English translation in FLANNERY1, pp. 369-387. See especially nn. 21 & 25.
7
CD, English translation in FLANNERY1, pp. 564-590. See especially nn. 2 & 35.
8
STEGER, Apostolic Succession, p. 38, footnote 2.
9
CIC, c. 900 §1, English translation Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition, New English
Translation, prepared under the auspices of the CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA, Washington,
CLSA, 1999. This translation is used for all subsequent citations of the canons of the 1983 Code.
“Since it is of the very nature of the church that the power to consecrate the eucharist is imparted only
to the bishops and priests who are constituted its ministers by the reception of holy orders, the church
holds that the eucharistic mystery cannot be celebrated in any community except by an ordained priest,
as expressly taught by the Fourth Lateran Council.” SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF
THE FAITH, letter to bishops of the Catholic Church on certain questions concerning the minister of the
eucharist Sacerdotium ministeriale, 6 August 1983, no. 4, in AAS, 75 (1983), pp. 1001-1009, English
translation in Origins, 13, 14 (1983), p. 232.
 5

pastors of the church, and ensure that the church remains true to the faith of the

apostles, as given to them by Christ himself.

The issue arises then, when we move into the ecumenical arena, of how to deal

with the various situations of the different Churches and ecclesial communities. What

are we to say of those ecclesial communities that have not retained an historical

episcopate, so that there is no visible succession of episcopal mininstry? What are we

to say of those ecclesial communities that may have retained an episcopal ministry,

but in which there is no sign of succession? What can we say of those ecclesial

communities in which there is a sign of apostolic succession, but the succession is not

passed on by those whom the Roman Catholic Church would recognise as being in a

position to validly pass on apostolic succession? In this paper I will attempt to

respond to some of these questions by looking at the different Churches and ecclesial

communities, and the situations in which they find themselves.

Apostolic Succession beyond the Catholic Church

The first thing to say is that there is no single “non-Catholic” position regarding

apostolic succession.10 Closest to the Catholic position would be the Orthodox

Churches, which maintain apostolic succession. From this point we could move

through those ecclesial communities, like the Anglican communion, which has what

would appear to be a succession structure very similar to the Catholic Church. In the

other ecclesial communities, we would see all sorts of variations of dealing with how

that community remains true to the faith of the apostles. Carlos Steger, in surveying

the history of the doctrine of apostolic succession, shows how, for the churches of the
10
Indeed, one of the goals of this paper is to highlight some of the nuances and variations that
we discover when you begin to examine this matter.
 6

Reformation, succession in apostolic faith and teaching came to be seen as more

important than a mere physical, or linear, succession. 11 In some ecclesial

communities, this has even meant that they have no ‘apostolic office’ 12 or no sign of

handing on of apostolic succession.13

Eastern non-Catholic Churches with Apostolic Succession

The Eastern Churches that are not in communion with the Catholic Church are

in a unique position.14 Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism states:

These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true

sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and
the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.
Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris),
given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority,
is not merely possible but is encouraged.”15

Because the Eastern non-Catholic Churches have maintained apostolic succession,

they have valid orders, and therefore valid sacraments including the Eucharist. Canon

844 outlines the conditions under which there may be sacramental sharing between

Catholics and Eastern non-Catholics. Eastern non-Catholics may receive the

11
STEGER, Apostolic Succession, pp. 25-33. “Insisting that the actual working of the Holy Spirit
is not bound to a succession of ordinations, the radical wing of the Reformation maintained that ‘the
true succession’ is not bound to a ‘succession of place or person, but to the succession of the teaching
of the truth’ taught by the apostles.” Ibid., p. 28. Steger also suggests that the teaching of Vatican II
broadens the concept of succession from being a merely linear, physical, handing on of succession. He
says, “The historic bond with which the bishops are joined to the apostles, and these in turn with Jesus
Christ, is described not so much as a chain made up of isolated individuals, but as the continuation of
the apostles’ college in the college of bishops through succession.” Ibid., pp. 38-39.
12
Which, for Catholics, would reside in the office of bishops.
13
Again, for Catholics, this would mean validly ordained bishops validly ordaining new bishops
as their successors.
14
Cardinal Willebrands mentions the unique place of the non-Catholic Eastern Churches:
“Moreover, what I have said about the traditional attitude toward the Eastern churches – though they
too are detached from ‘communion under the successor of Peter’ – shows that instinctively the Catholic
Church has refused to see in the Orthodox communities nothing but a collection of elements of the
church. She has seen them as authentic churches.” Johannes WILLEBRANDS, “Vatican II’s Ecclesiology
of Communion,” Origins, 17 (1987), p. 32.
15
UR, no. 15, p. 465.
 7

sacraments of Anointing of the Sick, Eucharist and Penance from Catholic ministers

“if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed” (c. 844 §3).

Catholics may also receive these sacraments from Eastern non-Catholic ministers,

“[w]henever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it,” “provided

that danger of error or indifferentism is avoided,” and “for whom it is physically or

morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister” (c. 844 § 2).

The Separated Ecclesial Communities in the West

When we look beyond the Eastern non-Catholic Churches, each ecclesial

community needs to be examined on a case by case basis. Generally speaking,

apostolic succession has not been maintained. Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism

makes an important point:

Although the ecclesial communities separated from us lack the

fullness of unity with us which flows from baptism, and although
we believe they have not preserved the proper reality of the
eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence
of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate
the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess
that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming
in glory. For these reasons, the doctrine about the Lord’s Supper,
about the other sacraments, worship, and ministry in the Church,
should form subjects of dialogue.16

Since these ecclesial communities have not maintained valid orders and therefore do

not have valid sacraments or the eucharist, Roman Catholics may not receive the

eucharist or other sacraments in these communities. Canon 844 § 4 does allow

members of these other ecclesial communities to receive the sacraments of the

eucharist, anointing of the sick and penance in the Catholic Church if the following

conditions are met: (i) danger of death or some other grave necessity, determined as

such by the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops; (ii) inability of the non-

16
UR, no. 22, p. 469.
 8

Catholic person to approach a minister of their own community; (iii) the non-Catholic

must ask for the sacrament of their own accord; (iv) they must manifest Catholic faith

in the sacrament they are to receive; and (v) they must be properly disposed.17

The Special Condition of the Anglican Communion

In speaking of the various divisions that have occurred in the Western Church,

the Decree on Ecumenism makes special mention of the Anglican Communion: “…

many communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See.

Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the

Anglican communion occupies a special place.”18 When looking at the subject under

consideration, apostolic succession has a complicated history in Anglicanism.

Within Anglicanism there is a 17th century restriction that “no persons are

allowed to exercise the offices of bishop, priest or deacon in this Church unless they

are so ordained, or have already received such ordination with the laying on of hands

by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders.” 19 John Lynch

17
CIC, c. 844 § 4.
18
UR, no. 13, p. 463.
19
John E LYNCH, “The Office of Bishop in Mainline Protestant Churches,” in Canon Law
Society of America Proceedings, 60 (1998), Washington, CLSA, 1998, p. 113. (= LYNCH, “The Office
of Bishop”). “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 publick 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 the Church of Englad; no man shall be accounted or
taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of England, 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 formerly Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.” The Book of
Common Prayer, And Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the
Church, According to the Use of The Church of England; Together with the Psalter or Psalms of
David, Pointed as they are to be Sung or Said in Churhces; and the Form and Manner of Making,
Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, London, Eyre & Spottiswoode (Bible
Warehouse) Ltd, n.d., p. 417.
 9

states that “[t]his restriction barring ministers who are not episcopally ordained is

deeply embedded in the history of Anglicanism.”20 Within Anglicanism, particularly

in the first century of the Reformation, there was an acknowledgement that “real

ministry existed” in foreign reformed churches in which there was no episcopal

ordination, however “the Anglicans did not accept the legitimacy of Presbyterian or

other ministry within the English nation.21 It could be said, therefore, that there was

some attempt to maintain apostolic succession within England.

In his Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae of 1896, Pope Leo XII declared

“that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are

absolutely null and utterly void.”22 In the letter he goes to some lengths to show that

he is simply confirming what had already been shown by Pope Julius III and Pope

Paul IV. Anglican orders are viewed as null because the ordination ritual had been

changed, and so the Anglican ordination rites were null due to a lack of form. He

states that later corrections to the Anglican ordinal “shows that the Anglicans

themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate.” 23 He goes on

to add, “But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was

introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the

Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power

of ordaining.”24 An interesting development occurred when “[f]ull intercommunion

20
LYNCH, “The Office of Bishop,” p. 113.
21
Ibid.
22
LEO XIII, apostolic letter on Anglican orders Apostolicae curae, 13 September 1896, in ASS,
29 (1896-1897), pp. 193-203, English translation in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII:
Translations from Approved Sources, New York, Benziger Brothers, 1903, p. 405.
23
Ibid., p. 401.
24
Ibid.
 10

was established between Anglicans and Old Catholics in the Bonn agreement of 1931,

which recognized that each communion holds ‘all the essentials of the Christian

faith.’”25 Given that the Catholic Church recognises the validity of the orders of the

Old Catholics, this raises the possibility that some Anglican clerics could be validly

ordained in apostolic succession. Avery Dulles, speaking about the commentary to

John Paul II’s motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem which lists Leo XIII’s teaching on the

invalidity of Anglican orders as an example of a definitive Catholic teachings, says:

“… the commentary says nothing about the validity of Anglican orders today. In view

of the participation of bishops from other Churches in Anglican ordinations, new

developments in Anglican sacramental theology, and some modifications in the

Anglican ordinals, the shape of the question has somewhat changed.”26

The ordination of women by the Anglican communion poses a difficulty for

ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics believe that “A

baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.” 27 This canon highlights two

key elements of Catholic doctrine, namely that it is baptized males alone who can

receive ordination, and that this is for validity. The attempted ordination of a woman

is therefore regarded as invalid. This would have clear repercussions if it was

25
LYNCH, “The Office of Bishop,” p. 116.
26
Avery DULLES, “How to Read the Pope,” The Tablet, 252 (July 25, 1998), p. 968. Dulles goes
on to say, “I am not saying, of course, that Anglican orders are now valid. I am simply pointing out the
limits of what is affirmed in the commentary.” ibid. Margaret O’Gara, after dealing with the historical
data that surrounds Apostolicae Curae, the developments that have occurred in Roman Catholic
theology concerning ordained ministry and developments in the ordination rites themselves, and
ecumenical dialogues on ordained ministry, proposes the following as one possibility to assist in the
recognition of ordained ministry (and hence, apostolic succession) in other churches: “… I want to lift
out one theme that recurs frequently: it is the theme of intention. I think that intention offers many
intriguing possibilities for canon lawyers to develop.” Margaret O’GARA, “Apostolicae Curae After a
Century: Anglican Orders in Light of Recent Ecumenical Dialogue on Ordained Ministry in the
Church,” in Canon Law Society of America Proceedings, 60 (1998), Washington, CLSA, 1998, p15.
27
CIC, c. 1024.
 11

attempted to ordain a woman as bishop. In the Catholic view, since the ordination

itself would be invalid, there is no possibility of passing on apostolic succession in the

Catholic sense. John Paul II clarified in 1994 that the teaching of the Catholic Church

regarding the reservation of sacred ordination to men alone “pertains to the church’s

divine constitution itself” and he rejected those opinions that hold that the teaching is

“still open to debate” or that it “is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.”28

The Lutherans

The Lutheran view regarding the episcopate goes right back, understandably,

to Luther himself. In principle, he had no objection to the ordination of ministers by

bishops. He said “that if bishops were true bishops and really concerned about the

church, ‘they might be permitted (for the sake of love and unity, but not out of

necessity) to ordain and confirm us and our preachers, provided this could be done

without pretense, humbug, and unchristian ostentation.’”29 So whilst ‘they might be

permitted … to ordain’ Luther’s view is clearly a change to the tradition. John Lynch

states,

Except for the Church of Sweden, Lutheran churches were

unanimously agreed that the historic episcopacy was not a matter of
divine right (iure divino). Even though two-thirds of the world’s
Christians have lived under the historic episcopacy, only in the
aftermath of World War II has the question of polity been agitated
among Lutherans. The ecumenical movement has brought them
face to face with denominations that identify themselves by some

JOHN PAUL II, apostolic letter on reserving priestly ordination to men alone Ordinatio
28

Sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994, no. 4, in AAS, 86 (1994), pp. 545-548, English translation in Origins, 24, 4
(1994), p. 51. He added, “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of
great importance … 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.” Ibid. Whereas
there could be some doubt as to the validity of the ordination of some Anglican male clergy, due to the
participation of validly ordained bishops in Anglican ordination rites, using a ritual that contains all the
elements of the Catholic form of the ordination rite, and therefore the possibility of the presence of
apostolic succession in some circumstances, there is no doubt about the validity of the attempted
ordination of women, and the resultant effect this has on apostolic succession.
29
LYNCH, “The Office of Bishop,” p. 107.
 12

organizational principle, which followers of Luther must hold to be

unnecessary, an adiaphoron, ‘a thing that makes no difference.’” 30

Despite this view, some national Lutheran churches had maintained an episcopacy

within their church structure. This in turn facilitated various ecumenical agreements

with other church communities, particularly the Anglicans. John Lynch describes that

Rapprochement of the Northern European Lutherans with the

Anglicans was particularly feasible because most of those churches
had maintained the office of bishop since the Reformation, as in the
case of England and Sweden, or had reintroduced it, as in Norway
and Iceland. The Lutherans in the United States, however, in the
tradition of Germany did not have an episcopate.”31

He adds, “Furthermore, the Lutheran and Anglican Churches of Northern Europe

through the Porvoo Agreement had entered into full communion in 1996.”32

A dialogue report of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission, “Ways

to Community,” suggests the need on the part of Lutherans, to restore the historic

episcopate, for the sake of Christian unity. It states:

There is a need beyond the local congregation for leadership

services (episcope) with pastoral responsibility for proclamation,
sacraments and Church unity. Thus in addition to the office of
parish pastor, there is a place for supracongregational ministries in
the Church. Although Lutherans do not regard the historic
episcopacy as based on an explicit irrevocable command from the
Lord valid for all times and situations, yet this polity arose through
the work of the Holy Spirit, and there are historical and ecumenical
reasons for seriously considering its restoration in Lutheran
Churches. Further, a ministry serving the unity of the Church as a
whole is, for Lutherans, in accord with the will of the Lord, but
without its concrete form having been fixed once for all.33

30
Ibid., p. 108.

31
Ibid., p.105. Carlos Steger points out that, in the Swedish Lutheran Church, “the succession
to the episcopal office was maintained, without ascribing any dogmatic significance to it.” STEGER,
Apostolic Succession, p. 28.
32
LYNCH, “The Office of Bishop,” p.105.

33
LUTHERAN-ROMAN CATHOLIC JOINT COMMISSION, “Ways to Community,” [n. 23] in One in
Christ, 17:4 (1981), p. 362.
 13

The Joint Commission notes that the “relations between our Churches continue to be

troubled by the non-recognition of ministries.” 34 However, it acknowledges that

whereas Vatican II spoke of the “absence of the sacrament of Orders” 35 in the

ecclesial communities stemming from the Reformation, “the conviction has been

growing that it is not a matter of a total absence, but instead as a ‘lack of the fullness

of ministry,’ and it is not denied that the ministry in Lutheran churches exercises

essential functions of the office which, according to Roman Catholic conviction, Jesus

Christ instituted for his Church.”36

World Council of Churches

Whilst the World Council of Churches is not a church as such, it is worth

commenting on some of the work it has done in this area. The documents of the

commissions of the World Council of Churches give some sense of where the

ecumenical movement has gone. Significant to the discussion of this paper is the 1982

document of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches

entitled Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (hereafter BEM).37

BEM states that

34
Ibid., [n. 87], p. 378.
35
UR, no. 22, p. 469.
36
LUTHERAN-ROMAN CATHOLIC JOINT COMMISSION, “Ways to Community,” [n. 87] in One in
Christ, 17:4 (1981), p. 378.
37
“The Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document … was approved in 1982 at a conference
held at Lima, Peru. The Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches decided that
this text, long in preparation, had reached sufficient maturity to be sent to all the Christian churches for
an official response.” LYNCH, “The Office of Bishop,” p. 117. It is important to note that this document
of the World Council of Churches is not a statement of the belief of any particular church. It is a
statement, rather, of where the ecumenical dialogue on these matters had reached. The response of each
church and ecclesial community is properly the reflection of the official belief of that church or
ecclesial community.
 14

In order to fulfil its mission, the Church needs persons who are
publicly and continually responsible for pointing to its fundamental
dependence on Jesus Christ, and thereby provide, within a
multiplicity of gifts, a focus of its unity. The ministry of such
persons, who since very early times have been ordained, is
constitutive for the life and witness of the Church.38

The document goes on to acknowledge the important ministry that the apostles played

in the life of the early Christian community. “A particular role is attributed to the

Twelve within the communities of the first generation. They are witnesses of the

Lord’s life and resurrection (Acts 1:21-26). They lead the community in prayer,

teaching, the breaking of bread, proclamation and service (Acts 2:42-47; 6:2-6,

etc.).”39 The document states that “As Christ chose and sent the apostles, Christ

continues through the Holy Spirit to choose and call persons into the ordained

ministry.”40

BEM acknowledges, that, “Historically, it is true to say, the threefold ministry

[of bishop, presbyter and deacon] became the generally accepted pattern in the Church

of the early centuries and is still retained today by many churches.” 41 The document

acknowledges the realities of history, but also looks to the possibilities of unity today.

It argues,

Although there is no single New Testament pattern, although the

Spirit has many times led the Church to adapt its ministries to
contextual needs, and although other forms of the ordained ministry
have been blessed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless the

38
WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Ministry no. 8, Faith and
Order Paper, no. 111, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1982, p. 21 (= BEM).
39
BEM, Ministry no. 9, p. 21.
40
BEM, Ministry no. 11, p. 21. A significant caution is added in the commentary on paragraph
11: “The basic reality of an ordained ministry was present from the beginning (cf. para. 8). The actual
forms of ordination and of the ordained ministry, however, have evolved in complex historical
developments (cf. para. 19). The churches, therefore, need to avoid attributing their particular forms of
the ordained ministry directly to the will and institution of Jesus Christ.” BEM, p. 22.
41
BEM, Ministry no. 22, p. 24.
 15

threefold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon may serve today

as an expression of the unity we seek and also as a means for
achieving it.42

The importance of the episcopal ministry is underscored. “Among these gifts a

ministry of episkopé is necessary to express and safeguard the unity of the body.

Every church needs this ministry of unity in some form in order to be the Church of

God, the one body of Christ, a sign of the unity of all in the Kingdom.” 43 In describing

the function of bishops, the document states that those who exercise the episcopal role

“serve the apostolicity and unity of the Church’s teaching, worship and sacramental

life.”44

BEM directly addresses the issue of apostolic succession. It places apostolic

succession within the broader category of ‘Succession in the Apostolic Tradition.’

Defining this tradition, it says:

Apostolic tradition in the Church means continuity in the permanent

characteristics of the Church of the apostles: witness to the
apostolic faith, proclamation and fresh interpretation of the Gospel,
celebration of baptism and the eucharist, the transmission of
ministerial responsibilities, communion in prayer, love, joy and
suffering, service to the sick and the needy, unity among the local
churches and sharing the gifts which the Lord has given to each. 45

The commentary to paragraph 34 of BEM is significant. It acknowledges that within

the broader category of the apostolic tradition, there is a specific and concrete

succession of the apostolic ministry:

Within this apostolic tradition is an apostolic succession of the

ministry which serves the continuity of the Church in its life in
Christ and its faithfulness to the words and acts of Jesus transmitted

42
BEM, Ministry no. 22, p. 24.
43
BEM, Ministry no. 23, p. 25.
44
BEM, Ministry no. 29, pp. 26-27.
45
BEM, Ministry no. 34, p. 28.
 16

by the apostles. The ministers appointed by the apostles, and then

the episkopoi of the churches, were the first guardians of this
transmission of the apostolic tradition; they testified to the apostolic
succession of the ministry which was continued through the bishops
of the early Church in collegial communion with the presbyters and
deacons within the Christian community. A distinction should be
made, therefore, between the apostolic tradition of the whole
Church and the succession of the apostolic ministry.”46

Some authors would suggest that this understanding can be reconciled with the

Roman Catholic understanding, especially as found in Vatican II. Whilst

acknowledging that Vatican II clearly “reaffirmed the traditional Roman Catholic

understanding of apostolic succession … by adopting a broad concept of the church,

the council made it possible to see apostolic succession from the wider perspective of

the apostolicity of the whole body of believers.”47

BEM describes some of the ‘movement’ that has occurred due to the various

ecumencial dialogues. Hinting at this movement, the document states, “In churches

which practise the succession through the episcopate, it is increasingly recognized that

a continuity in apostolic faith, worship and mission has been preserved in churches

which have not retained the form of historic episcopate.” 48 The ultimate question is to

what degree the churches without episcopal succession have indeed maintained the

apostolic tradition, albeit without the sign of episcopal succession.

46
BEM, p. 28. “Under the particular historical circumstances of the growing Church in the early
centuries, the succession of bishops became one of the ways, together with the transmission of the
Gospel and the life of the community, in which the apostolic tradition of the Church was expressed.
This succession was understood as serving, symbolizing and guarding the continuity of the apostolic
faith and communion.” BEM, Ministry no 36, p. 29.
47
STEGER, Apostolic Succession, p. 41.
48
BEM, Ministry no. 37, p. 29.
 17

BEM acknowledges that “deliberate efforts are required” in order to move

“towards the mutual recognition of ministries.”49 Two broad injunctions are presented:

“Churches which have preserved the episcopal succession are asked to recognize both

the apostolic content of the ordained ministry which exists in churches which have not

maintained such succession and also the existence in these churches of a ministry of

episkopé in various forms.”50 On the other hand, those churches that have not

maintained episcopal succession “are asked to realize that the continuity with the

Church of the apostles finds profound expression in the successive laying on of hands

by bishops and that, though they may not lack the continuity of the apostolic tradition,

this sign will strengthen and deepen that continuity. They may need to recover the

sign of the episcopal succession.”51

Practically speaking, BEM states that

“Today churches, including those engaged in union negotiations,

are expressing willingness to accept episcopal succession as a sign
of the apostolicity of the life of the whole Church. Yet, at the same
time, they cannot accept any suggestion that the ministry exercised
in their own tradition should be invalid until the moment that it
enters into an existing line of episcopal succession.52

Obviously, there is more to be worked out before there can be a full recognition of

ministry. The ordination of women also clearly poses difficulties from the Roman

Catholic perspective. BEM suggests that the obstacles raised by the differing practices

in this regard “must not be regarded as substantive hindrance for further efforts

towards mutual recognition. Openness to each other holds the possibility that the

49
BEM, Ministry no. 51, p. 32.
50
BEM, Ministry no. 53, p. 32
51
BEM, Ministry no. 53, p. 32.
52
BEM, Ministry no. 38, pp. 29-30.
 18

Spirit may well speak to one church through the insights of another. Ecumenical

consideration, therefore, should encourage, not restrain, the facing of this question.”53

William Maravee, commenting on the Lima document, explains that the

document is asking for the churches to recognise the ministry that is already present in

the other churches. He wonders whether the relevant paragraph in UR can be

interpreted as the churches of the Reformation having deficient ministry, rather than a

lack of ministry. If an interpretation of deficiency is allowed, this would allow some

recogition, albeit imperfect, of the ministry of other ecclesial communities by the

Roman Catholic Church.54

Conclusion

It is fairly clear that there has been a high degree of convergence in the various

ecumenical dialogues regarding the apostolic nature of the church, and of the ministry

that serves this apostolicity. There seems to be growing consensus that the episcopacy

is necessary for the unity of the church. One of the constant challenges is that the

results of ecumenical dialogues have to be received by the participating churches and

ecclesial communities, and translated into concrete actions. As examples of this, one

could mention the restoration of an episcopal ministry in ecclesial communities which

had lacked this. One could also mention the convergence of the form of ordination

rites so that different churches recognise in the other’s rite all the necessary

53
BEM, Ministry no. 54, p. 32. Needless to say, listening to the Spirit requires much
discernment, for it is never a simple matter to declare or to accept that a church or ecclesial community
has grown in a way that is a legitimate unfolding of the apostolic tradition, or that it has deviated from
it.

54
William MARREVEE, “Chapter X: Lima Document on Ordained Ministry,” in Michael A.
Fahey (ed.), Catholic Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: A Study Comissioned by the
Catholic Theological Society of America, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1986, p. 170.
 19

conditions. All of these are very important steps along the way, and we could say that

the ecumenical movement has been very successful in moving things in this direction.

For the churches that have maintained the sign of succession in the apostolic

ministry, especially the Eastern and Latin Catholic Churches and the Orthodox

Churches, there remains a difficulty when viewing those ecclesial communities that

do not maintain this sign, or that omitted the sign55 for a period of their history such

that it could be said that apostolic succession had lapsed. Added to this is the more

recent development of the so-called ordination of women, which poses a further

hurdle on the ecumenical road.

It is difficult to see a way around the fact that, for the effective re-

establishment of apostolic succession, those who may be validly ordained should be

ordained by someone who has been validly ordained himself. This suggestion is still

difficult for many non-Catholics to accept. However, given how much convergence it

seems has occurred already as a result of the ecumenical movement, perhaps with

more time, more prayer, and more ongoing dialogue, the point may be reached when

such a suggestion does not seem so impossible. The emergence of Anglicanorum

coetibus,56 for example, could only have been possible because of the ecumenical

dialogues, and it highlights the fact that there are many paths to Christian unity, and

that the Holy Spirit can always lead us to find heretofore unknown ways of restoring

55
Or in the case of the Anglicans, had used a defective form of the sign, such as to render the
ordinations invalid.

56
BENEDICT XVI, apostolic constitution providing for personal ordinariates for Anglicans
entering into full communion with the Catholic Church Anglicanorum coetibus, 4 November 2009,
English translation in Origins, 39 (2009), pp. 388-390.
 20

the unity of church and of overcoming the divisions that human weakness has

allowed.
 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources

Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Rome, 1909 -

Acta Sanctae Sedis, Rome, 1865-1908.

BENEDICT XVI, apostolic constitution providing for personal ordinariates for

Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church
Anglicanorum coetibus, 4 November 2009, English translation in Origins, 39
(2009), pp. 388-390.

Codex iuris canonici auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus, fontium

annotatione et indice analytico-alphabetico auctus, Libreria editrice Vaticana,
1989, English translation Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition, New
English Translation, prepared under the auspices of the CANON LAW SOCIETY
OF AMERICA, Washington, Canon Law Society of America, 1999.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Responses to Some Questions

Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, 29 June 2007, in AAS
99 (2007), pp. 604-608, http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/ congregations/
cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
(23 January 2011).

JOHN PAUL II, apostolic letter on reserving priestly ordination to men alone Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, 22 May 1994, in AAS, 86 (1994), pp. 545-548, English translation
in Origins, 24, 4 (1994), pp. 49-52.

LEO XIII, apostolic letter on Anglican orders Apostolicae curae, 13 September 1896,
in ASS, 29 (1896-1897), pp. 193-203, English translation in The Great
Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII: Translations from Approved Sources, New
York, Benziger Brothers, 1903, pp. 392-406.

PIUS XII, encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, in AAS, 35 (1943),
pp. 193-248, English translation in BLUETT, Joseph J., The Mystical Body of
Christ, An Encyclical Letter Issued June 29, 1943, by Pope Pius XII under the
title Mystici Corporis: Introductory Analysis, Study Outline, Review Questions,
Selected Bibliography, New York, NY, The America Press, 1943.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY, Directory for the

Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 25 March 1993, in
AAS, 85 (1993), pp. 1039-1119, English translation in Origins, 23, 9 (1993), pp.
129-160.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, letter to bishops of the
Catholic Church on certain questions concerning the minister of the eucharist
Sacerdotium ministeriale, 6 August 1983, in AAS, 75 (1983), pp. 1001-1009,
English translation in Origins, 13, 14 (1983), pp. 229-233.
 22

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, 21

November 1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 90-107, English translation in
FLANNERY1, pp. 452-470.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree on the Pastoral Office of the Bishops in the
Church Christus Dominus, 28 October 1965, in AAS, 58 (1966), pp. 673-696,
English translation in FLANNERY1, pp. 564-590.

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium,

21 November 1964, in AAS, 57 (1965), pp. 5-75, English translation in
FLANNERY1, pp. 350-426.

Books and Commentaries

BEAL, J.P., J.A. CORIDEN, and T.J. GREEN (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of
Canon Law, commissioned by the CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA, New
York/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 2000.

The Book of Common Prayer, And Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites
and Ceremonies of the Church, According to the Use of The Church of
England; Together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, Pointed as they are to
be Sung or Said in Churhces; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining,
and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, London, Eyre &
Spottiswoode (Bible Warehouse) Ltd, n.d.

CAPARROS, E. et al. (eds.), Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd ed. rev., Montréal,
Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, 2004.

CONGAR, Yves Marie Joseph, Challenge to the Church: The Case of Archbishop
Lefebvre, English translation by Paul INWOOD, Huntingdon, IN, Our Sunday
Visitor, 1976.

FLANNERY, Austin, (gen. ed.), Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar
Documents, vol. 1, new rev. ed., Northport, NY, Costello Pub. Co., 1996.

JOURNET, Charles, The Primacy of Peter: From the Protestant and from the Catholic
Point of View, Westminster, MD, Newman Press, 1954.

KOCIK, Thomas M., Apostolic Succession in an Ecumenical Context, New York, Alba
House, 1996.

MARZOA, A., J. MIRAS, R. RODRÍGUEZ-OCAÑA (eds.) and E. CAPARROS (gen. ed. of

English Translation), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,
Montréal, Wilson & LaFleur, 2004.

STEGER, Carlos Alfredo, Apostolic Succession in the Writings of Yves Congar and
Oscar Cullmann, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series,
20, Berrien Springs, MI, Andrews University Press, 1995.
 23

WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order
Paper, no. 111, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1982.

Articles

AGNEW, Francis H, “On the Origin of the Term Apostolos,” in Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 38 (1976), 49-53.

--------, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research,” in Journal

of Biblical Literature, 105 (1986), 75-96.

BOUYER, Louis, “The Ecclesiastical Ministry and the Apostolic Succession,” in

Downside Review, 90 (1972), 133-144.

CONGAR, Yves Marie Joseph, “Inspiration and the Apostolicity of the Church,” in
Theology Digest, 11 (1963), 187-191.

DULLES, Avery, “How to Read the Pope,” The Tablet, 252 (July 25, 1998), pp. 967-
968.

GRIFFIN, Bertram F, “The Challenge of Ecumenism for Canonists,” in Canon Law

Society of America Proceedings, 55 (1993), Washington, CLSA, 1998, pp. 17-
38.

LUTHERAN-ROMAN CATHOLIC JOINT COMMISSION, “Ways to Community,” in One in

Christ, 17:4 (1981), pp. 356-382.

LYNCH, John E., “The Office of Bishop in Mainline Protestant Churches,” in Canon
Law Society of America Proceedings, 60 (1998), Washington, CLSA, 1998, pp.
103-123.

MCDONNELL, Kilian, “Ways of Validating Ministry,” in Journal of Ecumenical

Studies, 7 (1970), 225-229.

MARREVEE, William, “Chapter X: Lima Document on Ordained Ministry,” in

Michael A. Fahey (ed.), Catholic Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and
Ministry: A Study Comissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America,
Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1986, pp. 163-185.

O’GARA, Margaret, “Apostolicae Curae After a Century: Anglican Orders in Light of

Recent Ecumenical Dialogue on Ordained Ministry in the Church,” in Canon
Law Society of America Proceedings, 60 (1998), Washington, CLSA, 1998, pp.
1-18.

RATZINGER, Joseph, “The Ministerial Office and the Unity of the Church,” in Journal
of Ecumencial Studies, 1 (1964), 42-57.
 24

--------,“Primacy, Episcopate, and Apostolic Succession,” in The Episcopate and the

Primacy, New York, Herder and Herder, 1962.

VILLAIN, Maurice, “Can There Be Apostolic Succession Outside the Chain of

Imposition of Hands?” in Hans KUNG (ed.), Apostolic Succession: Rethinking a
Barrier to Unity, Concilium, 34, New York, Paulist Press, 1968, 94-95.

WILLEBRANDS, Johannes, “Vatican II’s Ecclesiology of Communion,” Origins, 17

(1987), pp. 27-33.