From the Clementine Chapel to Walsingham: Apostolicae Curae and the Problem of Ecclesiastical Symbolism
The recent controversies involving Archbishop Sarah Mullally in the Vatican and Archbishop John Wilson at Walsingham illuminate a deeper and longstanding tension in Catholic-Anglican relations. While the Catholic Church continues formally to uphold the judgment of Apostolicae Curae (1896), contemporary ecumenical symbolism increasingly appears to operate as though that judgment were of diminished practical consequence. This editorial examines the doctrinal, historical, and ecclesiological dimensions of that tension.
The events which have drawn attention in recent weeks—the appearance of Archbishop Sarah Mullally imparting a blessing in the Clementine Chapel of the Apostolic Palace and the subsequent reception of a blessing by Archbishop John Wilson during the Anglican National Pilgrimage at Walsingham—are best understood not as isolated incidents but as illustrative moments within a wider and unresolved tension. That tension lies between the Catholic Church’s continued doctrinal reliance upon Apostolicae Curae and the forms of symbolic expression increasingly employed in contemporary ecumenical practice.
Any adequate treatment must begin with the doctrinal principle itself. In 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued Apostolicae Curae following a detailed historical and theological investigation into the nature of Anglican Orders. The inquiry examined not only episcopal succession but the Edwardine Ordinal, the theological context of its composition, and the intention manifested within its rites. The conclusion was definitive:
“Wherefore… We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”¹
This judgment rests upon a sacramental principle articulated more broadly by Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum: the visible constitution of the Church is inseparable from her doctrinal and sacramental unity.² A sacrament must signify what it effects. Where the form of a rite is constructed in such a way as to exclude essential elements of the Catholic priesthood, the sacramental reality itself is called into question.
The reform of the Ordinal under Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1550 and 1552 is central to this conclusion. The traditional Catholic formulae expressing the priest’s power “to offer sacrifice for the living and the dead” were removed and replaced with language emphasising preaching and pastoral oversight.³ The revised form—“Receive the Holy Ghost… for the Office and Work of a Priest”—omits any explicit reference to sacrificial priesthood. This omission was not incidental but reflected a theological rejection of the sacrificial understanding of the priesthood as defined at the Council of Trent. Leo XIII therefore judged that the Anglican rite did not merely fail to express Catholic priesthood adequately; it embodied a different conception of ministry altogether.⁴
The Anglican response in Saepius Officio (1897) argued that intention should be presumed where the external rite is performed. Leo XIII rejected this reasoning, insisting that sacramental intention is not an interior abstraction but is expressed through the rite itself.⁵ A form which excludes essential elements of Catholic priesthood cannot be presumed to convey the intention to confer that priesthood.
For this reason, the judgment of Apostolicae Curae is not reducible to a historical rupture in succession. It concerns the theological identity of Anglican ministry. Subsequent developments—including the participation of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican consecrations—have not altered the Catholic position, precisely because the defect identified by Leo XIII lies within the rite and its underlying intention.⁶
The continuing practical authority of this judgment is evident in the Church’s sacramental discipline. Anglican clergy who are received into full communion with the Catholic Church are ordained absolutely, not conditionally.⁷ This practice, consistently applied by the Holy Office and codified in canonical discipline, demonstrates that Apostolicae Curae remains not merely a historical document but an operative doctrinal norm governing sacramental practice.
A second doctrinal consideration must be added. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), Pope John Paul II declared that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination upon women, and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the faithful.⁸ This teaching concerns not discipline but the nature of the sacrament itself. The Church understands Holy Orders as intrinsically limited to baptised males.
In the case of Archbishop Mullally, these two doctrinal lines converge. The question is not simply one of invalid orders, but of a ministry which Catholic theology holds to be sacramentally impossible. The Vatican images therefore attracted attention not because of personal relations between Catholics and Anglicans, but because of the symbolic implications of the act itself.
The Clementine Chapel, situated within the Apostolic Palace, is closely associated with the public life of the papacy. It is not a neutral setting. Actions performed within it readily assume a representative character. When a Catholic archbishop is seen to receive a blessing from an Anglican archbishop—particularly one whom Catholic doctrine does not recognise as capable of receiving Holy Orders—the gesture invites interpretation. The difficulty lies in the apparent divergence between the symbolism of the act and the doctrinal framework within which it must be understood.
The subsequent events at Walsingham must be considered in this light. The shrine of Walsingham, established in the eleventh century and long known as “England’s Nazareth,” was one of the foremost centres of Marian pilgrimage in medieval Christendom. Its destruction under Henry VIII, including the removal of the Holy House and the suppression of pilgrimage, became emblematic of England’s ecclesial rupture with Rome. The later restoration of Catholic pilgrimage at the Slipper Chapel in 1897 re-established Walsingham as a locus of devotion, but within a divided ecclesial context.⁹
Within this historical framework, the participation of a Catholic archbishop in an Anglican Eucharistic celebration carries a significance beyond that of an ordinary ecumenical encounter. The reception of a blessing during the Communion rite—an action intrinsically associated with the exercise of ministerial authority—raises questions concerning what is being signified. When considered alongside the earlier Vatican episode, the Walsingham incident appeared not as an isolated gesture but as part of a broader pattern of symbolic interaction.
That pattern must be situated within the development of Catholic-Anglican relations since the Second Vatican Council. The work of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), particularly its statements on Eucharistic doctrine (1971) and ministry (1973), has sought to articulate areas of convergence while acknowledging continuing divergence.¹⁰ These dialogues have fostered a climate of mutual respect and theological engagement. Yet they have not resulted in doctrinal agreement on the central questions of Holy Orders, sacrificial priesthood, or ecclesial authority.
This distinction between dialogue and doctrinal agreement is essential. The existence of theological conversation does not imply the resolution of theological difference. The difficulty arises when symbolic actions appear to communicate conclusions which formal doctrine has not reached.
The concern is not new. In Mortalium Animos (1928), Pope Pius XI warned that participation in religious acts carries doctrinal implications and cannot be regarded as theologically neutral. Unity, he insisted, must be grounded in shared faith and sacramental communion, not expressed through gestures which obscure existing divisions.¹¹ The same principle is reflected in the Holy Office’s consistent prohibition of communicatio in sacris where such participation might imply a false equivalence of ministries.
A similar understanding is found in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), where Pope Pius XII describes the Church as a visible body united in faith, sacraments, and governance.¹² Unity is therefore not merely aspirational but concrete; where these elements are absent, separation remains.
The contemporary situation differs in tone but not entirely in substance. The Catholic Church has not repudiated Apostolicae Curae. It continues to apply the judgment in its sacramental practice. Anglican clergy are ordained absolutely upon reception into the Church. The doctrinal position remains intact and operative.
At the same time, contemporary ecclesiastical symbolism increasingly appears to proceed as though Anglican ministry possessed a degree of practical ecclesial recognition. As noted in Pope Leo’s Doublespeak and the Unbroken Authority of Apostolicae Curae, recent ecclesiastical language often approaches Anglican ministers in terms that differ little from those applied to Catholic clergy, while maintaining the formal authority of Leo XIII’s judgment.¹³
The result is a developing disjunction between doctrine and perception. Officially, Anglican Orders remain invalid. Officially, the Church rejects the possibility of women’s ordination. Yet certain public gestures—whether in the Vatican or at Walsingham—appear to operate according to assumptions that are difficult to reconcile with those positions.
This disjunction is not resolved by appealing to personal intention. The issue is not whether the participants in such encounters act in good faith, nor whether they intend to make doctrinal statements. The issue is that ecclesiastical actions, by their nature, are interpretative. They communicate meaning within the life of the Church.
The controversies surrounding Archbishop Mullally and Archbishop Wilson therefore do not introduce a new doctrinal problem. They render visible an existing tension between the Church’s doctrinal commitments and certain forms of contemporary symbolic expression.
The difficulty is not that doctrine has changed. The difficulty is that contemporary symbolism increasingly proceeds as though it had.
¹ Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (1896), §36.
² Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (1896), §§9–10.
³ Edwardine Ordinal (1552), Form for the Ordering of Priests.
⁴ Apostolicae Curae, §§24–33.
⁵ Apostolicae Curae, §33.
⁶ Cf. subsequent Roman responses to Anglican orders; participation of Old Catholic bishops does not remedy defect of form and intention.
⁷ 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 845 §1; consistent Holy Office practice.
⁸ John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), §4.
⁹ Historical accounts of Walsingham; restoration of the Slipper Chapel (1897).
¹⁰ ARCIC I: Eucharistic Doctrine (1971); Ministry and Ordination (1973).
¹¹ Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928), §§6–10.
¹² Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), §§22–23.
¹³ Pope Leo’s Doublespeak and the Unbroken Authority of Apostolicae Curae, Nuntiatoria, 31 October 2025.
RELATED ARTICLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- 07.06.26 Nuntiatoria CIX: Without truth, there is no authorityNuntiatoria CIX explores a civilisation confronting a crisis of authority. From policing, free speech, education and the rule of law to ecclesiastical confusion, doctrinal ambiguity and the resurgence of Catholic tradition, this edition examines institutions under strain and argues that lasting legitimacy can only be restored when authority is once again grounded in truth.
- 07.06.26 Nuntiatoria CIX: Sine Veritate Nulla AuctoritasThis edition of Nuntiatoria highlights a growing crisis of confidence in institutions, such as the Church, universities, and the police, where uncertainty about truth erodes trust. Ambiguity in doctrine and ideological pressures undermine authority, while a resurgence of traditional practices signals a desire for stability and objective truth amidst societal upheaval.
- The Banquet of the King and the Bread of Angels: The Second Sunday after Pentecost and the Sunday Within the Octave of Corpus ChristiThe Second Sunday after Pentecost and Corpus Christi highlight the significance of the Eucharist in Christian life. The Gospel invites believers to reflect on their priorities, emphasising that earthly concerns can overshadow spiritual nourishment. The celebration of Corpus Christi reaffirms Christ’s enduring presence, urging the faithful to accept His invitation to the sacramental banquet.
- The Synod That Forgot to Save the ChurchThe Irish Synodal Pathway faces profound critique from within the Catholic community, questioning its purpose amid declining belief and sacramental participation. While processes emphasise themes like inclusion and participation, they risk neglecting the Church’s core mission of glorifying God and salvaging souls. Without clarity on this supernatural aim, renewal efforts remain ineffective.
- The Flag They Fear: Hastings Pride and the Crisis of Belonging in BritainBishop Athanasius Schneider criticized the Vatican-sanctioned LGBTQ+ Jubilee pilgrimage as a scandalous event promoting sin, labeling supportive clergy as “spiritual criminals” and “murderers of souls.” He condemned the lack of repentance during the pilgrimage, warning of spiritual consequences and calling for accountability from Church leaders to uphold moral teachings.
Leave a Reply