Tag Archive for 'archbishop of canterbury'

mitregate 3D – the movie!

Published on June 28, 2010 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: Anglican, archbishop of canterbury, bible, film, humor, humour, movie, new zealand, orthodox.

Bosco & Katharine Jefferts Schori

I was able to be present when Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was welcomed at a Powhiri at Te Hui Amorangi O Te Waipounamu hosted by Bishop John Gray. This was followed by a wonderful meal. [photo: Alistair Kinniburgh]

Presiding Bishop Katharine went on to the historic St Michael and All Angels (the pro-cathedral before the cathedral was built) and preached there for Evensong. She wore her mitre. The New Zealand Film Commission has bought the ~~rites~~ rights to the movie Mitregate 3D. Peter Jackson is rumoured to be interested in directing. Weta Workshop will provide the mitres and other required liturgical millinarian accoutrements. Naomi Watts has already indicated she is interested in playing Presiding Bishop Katharine. Richard Harris, will, of course, play the Archbishop of Canterbury, but if he is not available Peter Jackson may bring back King Kong himself to once again act opposite Naomi Watts.

Mitregate was first prophesied by Bishop David Anderson. In his weekly message to Anglican Mainstream, on June 11, he devoted more than two thirds of his text to clergy vesture and other accoutrements (he will be sought out as an adviser for Weta Workshop to make sure all is ~~kosher~~ orthodox). One third of his message was expressing concern that his regular supplier for over 40 years of the Pontiff (sic!) 3 Acetate collar “has either gone out of business or stopped making them”. He will let avid followers of Anglican Mainstream know if he finds an alternative supplier. More than a third of his message is concerned that Presiding Bishop Katharine should not wear a mitre when in England. A week later Bishop David is horrified that Presiding Bishop Katharine didn’t go out and purchase a new black shirt, “If you look closely, you also see a red-purple bishop’s shirt under the overvestment (sic.).”

Above: Presiding Bishop Katharine at Salisbury (England) pre-mitregate

Above: Presiding Bishop Katharine in Southwark cathedral June 13 complying with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s requirement to not wear a mitre. “It is bizarre; it is beyond bizarre.”

Apparently under the Overseas Clergy Act (remember that the Church of England is a State Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a state appointment), Presiding Bishop Katharine was allowed to function as a priest but not as a bishop. This, while there is no Anglican certainty that a bishop is still a priest (until further discussion I continue to hold that a bishop is not a priest, a priest is not a deacon, etc).

St Paul also wrote about this controversy relatively recently, and the departure of the Archbishop of Canterbury from Bible-believing Christianity: “Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head – it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not cover her head, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should cover her head. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Cor 11)

Bishops Katharine Jefferts Schori & John Gray

Above: At St Michael and All Angels “For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Cor 11:10) [photo: Alistair Kinniburgh]

Mitregate – the official trailer of the movie!

Anglican cap tip to Significant truths
Powhiri – a welcome ceremony
Te Waipounamu – South Island of New Zealand
More on the welcome at Te Waipounamu
The sermon preached at St Michael and all Angels
More millinarianism

Daughter of Mitregate – the sequel

Bishops Mary Grey-Reeves, Michael Perham, & Gerard Mpango

Above: following Mitregate, on June 20, Bishop Mary Grey-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real, presided at the eucharist (head covered) in Gloucester Cathedral. The Bishop of Gloucester, Michael Perham, is a noted liturgical scholar. Bishop Mary Grey-Reeves is being approached to see if she will play herself in the sequel. The Wachowskis are interested in doing the sequel if it can be filmed in Sydney and include a car chase and a bullet time sequence of Bishop Mary Grey-Reeves putting her mitre on. Archbishop Peter Jensen is being approached to play Bishop Michael Perham. He may be predestined for this part.

UPDATE (June 29): A significant Naomi Watts site has taken up the story.

Just use last year’s sermon?

Published on February 21, 2010 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: anglicans, archbishop of canterbury, Lent, Rowan Williams, sermon.

The Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon (yes Anglicans love their titles ) has posted a video on his site which he calls “Archbishop Rowan Williams’s video message to mark the beginning of Lent 2010″. When I clicked to watch it I straight away recalled I had seen it before. It is in fact last year’s video. It’s a good reminder that many people regularly make too much of sermons. I don’t want to deny their value, but let’s keep them in perspective – if you don’t believe me, survey your community a month from now what the sermon was about on, say, Sunday Feb 7 and see what proportion remember. Meanwhile, if you want to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury on Lent again, here it is:

General Synod wish list

Published on February 11, 2010 in liturgy. 5 Comments Tags: anglicans, archbishop of canterbury, lambeth conference, new zealand.

I understand that the General Synod of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia meets this year from 10 to 14 May in Gisborne. I understand this – because I asked a General Synod member. Good luck to anyone trying to find this information online. It certainly isn’t mentioned on the General Synod website, “the official Web Site” of our province. (This has “General Synod / te Hinota Whanui ?? (sic.)” for “16/7 – 3/8/08″. Next: good luck to anyone trying to find out what might possibly be discussed at General Synod this year! Does our provincial leadership think that Anglicans have no interest either in knowing that our central governing body is meeting – or what about? Or worse (do they have a reason to be so “discreet” ?) Those who are unsure about the three Tikanga structure of our province regularly hear, “ah – but you haven’t experienced the great three-Tikanga events such as the meeting of General Synod [not verbalised: the meeting of which we only publicise to members of General Synod] you are always welcome as a visitor to these great meetings [which we will tell you about in the magazine Taonga after it has met]”

So, had you known that General Synod was meeting (and it’s probably too late to make suggestions to your diocesan representatives now) what might you have had on your wish list that General Synod might discuss? Here are some of mine (in no particular order):

An outward-looking serving church

Far too much of our time, energy (etc.) as a church is devoted to inward-looking, often proportionately minor issues. We need to become, and be seen to be, an outward-looking, serving community; missional in the sense of being alongside and of service beyond our worshipping community. More than half of our 5-fold mission statement is outward looking. Debate, financing, statistics, resourcing, etc needs to be about Haiti, government financial plans, climate change, ecology, …

Episcopal nominations

Recently we have had four dioceses convene Electoral Colleges to discern whom God is calling to be the new diocesan bishop. Each diocese proceeded in a way significantly different from each other. To an outside observer it would have been difficult to realise that these four dioceses actually belong to the same province. The canons were clearly found to be inadequate in each case. Terminology and methodology used did not even conform to the binding canons. It is beyond my comprehension why, a few years ago when it was obvious a significant number of diocesan bishops would be retiring, General Synod did not have the leadership to review these canons. I do not know when they were written – but canons excellent for a time when people and information moved by sailing ship does not appear to function appropriately in a digital age. I hope these canons are high on the agenda of this year’s General Synod.

Statistics

It must be possible to ascertain how many clergy we have in our province, what their qualifications and training are, and what their age and gender distribution is. It must be possible to work out how many people attend Anglican churches in our province, and what their age and gender distribution is. And what the trends have been in these statistics. I just have no idea where one goes for such basic planning and reflection information. IMO General Synod should collect and publish statistics.

Covenant

Although increasingly it is clear that energy for the covenant is decreasing, and if anyone does actually sign up to anything it will not make the slightest bit of difference to the real issues facing us, but, I guess the proposed Anglican Covenant will be discussed at General Synod. Currently the only “Instrument of Communion” that we recognise canonically in our constitution is the Archbishop of Canterbury. General Synod will have to set in motion the complex process of recognising the increasing number of instruments of communion (is it 5 now or 6 – I get so confused) if it decides to set us on the path of signing up to the Anglican Covenant. But I am sure it will remember its own report (PDF download):

Most respondents remained concerned about Provincial autonomy. They reiterated the previous response from this Province that had an earlier Covenant been in place, it is unlikely that the ordination of women, the Constitutional Changes which enabled this Church to act more justly to our indigenous partner, and the Shared Primacy, may not have been accomplished. [Since this report, of course, one might add having two cathedrals in the one diocese, and two co-equal diocesan bishops to that list]

The report anticipates that Tikanga Māori will not support the Covenant, and under our system that means the Covenant will not be signed. Further reflections on the Covenant are here and here.

Clergy formation

Only a small proportion of our clergy are trained at the College of St John the Evangelist (we do not know what proportion – see statistics above). This was once one of the best resourced Anglican seminaries in the Anglican Communion. Its deterioration appeared to have happened under the governance of General Synod, and there is now an attempt to make what it offers of a more appropriate standard. Older clergy will remember examinations prior to ordination. Other provinces require a certain standard of formation and training for their clergy. One example from The Episcopal Church:

The canons of the church (Title III, Canon 8, Section 5g) require that before ordination a candidate must be examined and show proficiency in:

* The Holy Scriptures
* Church History, including the Ecumenical Movement
* Christian Theology, including Missionary Theology and Missiology
* Christian Ethics and Moral Theology
* Studies in Contemporary Society, including Racial and Minority Groups
* Liturgics and Church Music
* Theory and practice of Ministry

Outside the church, in every area, leadership has demanded increased competency, training, and ongoing formation. The Anglican church in this province has been inappropriately (IMO) counter-cultural in what is expected from church leadership. A province-wide raising of standards to the highest levels will IMO redound to a far healthier church. Further neglect of this by General Synod is IMO scandalous.

Common Prayer

Whatever else the liturgical life of this province might be described as, it could not be termed “common prayer”. There is no pattern of what might be encountered in any randomly-chosen Sunday service within our province. One cannot predict the readings, collect, liturgical colour, or responses that one will find.

The following should be rescinded as soon as possible IMO:

The Worship Template – supporters of blessing of same-sex couples will lose the allowance of that rite (our province being the first within the Anglican Communion to allow it) but that rite should IMO be discussed on its own merit – not slipped in through a statute that allows everything.
The Alternative Form for Ordering the Eucharist – this allows for the use of any responses whatsoever, and any Eucharistic Prayer authorised within the Anglican Communion.
The Two Year Lectionary pp 550-641 in the Prayer Book. The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) should become the standard, also replacing the Three Year Series pp. 691-723.
A Form for Ordering the Eucharist should have its rubric restored to it being “not for the regular Sunday Celebration of the Eucharist” – common prayer includes agreed responses
Options for choosing the collect (currently you can choose or construct any collect you like). The suggested linking of the collect to the readings should be rejected.

The Prayer Book and all other authorised liturgical resources should be online. This is urgent.

The Lectionary should only provide one liturgical colour per celebration (not up to four as currently). The RCL readings should be the ones used at a parish’s main service, only after that might other readings provided by the lectionary be used at second services.

The requirement for clergy to pray the daily office was removed. Strong encouragement to pray the daily office should be introduced, clearly noting which is the official office of our province. Currently more than one office is encouraged by General Synod and the Lectionary.

The calendar should be revised taking into account suggestions in Celebrating Eucharist, the CofE calendar in Common Worship,and Holy Women, Holy Men: Celebrating the Saints (TEC)

The “listening process”

Diocesan motions passed relating to the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution I.10 on human sexuality appear to be one-sided and neglecting the listening process called for by that Conference. Again I can find little to nothing online about what is happening within the dioceses with this process in the 12 years since that call.

Websites

The province should have a website that actually functions. This is not a matter that needs lengthy consultation, committees and reports. Here is a website I created in half an hour. It is a scandal that we have such a poor web presence in the 21st century. It is both a symbol of, and no doubt causally related to, the aging presence in our pews (for which I have no statistical evidence). The Prayer Book and all other authorised liturgical resources should be online (see above). Every ministry unit should be required to have a web presence. Clergy should be encouraged to have a blog, facebook page, twitter profile, or other web-presence. All clergy in active service should have computer skills to achieve this with ease.

Anglican Covenant – partly used

Published on December 22, 2009 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: anglican church of canada, anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, common prayer, divorce, episcopal church, eucharist, victoria matthews.

Go forward in your time machine to a few years from now and imagine seeing on eBay or Trade Me: “For Sale, one partly used Anglican Covenant – owner hoping to recoup at least some of the significant amount of money and hope invested in it.”

The first drafts of the covenant were so un-Anglican the covenant did not even mention the unifying significance of common prayer in Anglicanism. I placed a submission, as did other visitors to this site. What developed was certainly an improvement in that regard. However, in the language of the New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act the proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not “do what it is meant to do.”

The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion has just released the revised text of section 4 of the proposed Anglican covenant. This is available here (left hand side last draft, right hand side current draft). A commentary from the working group that did the revision is available here. Lionel Deimel provides a possibly easier-to-follow version of the changes.

God’s platypus

God created a platypus denomination that experts have never believed can actually be a living denomination. It has bumbled on. In the last five or so decades, the communion has stumbled on fine in an “impaired” manner with women priests (and even bishops), differences about divorce, and local revisions of liturgy, even local alteration to eucharistic presidency. Now, because of disagreements over human sexuality, rather than facing that issue in the same manner as with the previous ones, there is the call to alter the whole basis of our structure. Let us be honest about this. The issue is gays. Whilst our diocese has passed a motion affirming the covenant in principle, the called for a listening process to gays has not even begun. Some people are not in a hurry to face the issue: gender and sex issues have been dealt with by Anglicanism (either overtly or covertly) in only one direction (consistently: liberalisation) – except (possibly) for gays (and even there – has any formal policy been reversed and headed back towards a more “conservative” position?). In the rising tide of these issues the “Anglican Covenant” stands as a rake trying to hold it back.

The covenant in NZ

Locally, NZ Anglicans are abysmally ill-and-uninformed (we colonials struggle with our smoke-signals under new environment-friendly protocols). A pro-covenant NZ bishop published an article in which our diocesan bishop, Victoria Matthews, was said to be one of the covenant drafters/revisers. She is not. In our numerically tiny province such comments carry disproportionate weight. He claimed that diocese would sign up to the covenant rather than provinces. He was unaware that ACC had met and sought revision of section 4.

The covenant requires recognition of four instruments of communion (and possibly the newly created “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” – a fifth?) Out of these, currently our NZ Anglican church only canonically recognises the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am no canon lawyer (in fact does NZ have any canon lawyers? We generally have so few canons – if you smile nicely in our province you can mostly get away with anything you like) but if we need to recognise the other three (or four) that requires two meetings of General Synod and a year “lying on the table for anyone to challenge” – then after that we might proceed to accept the covenant. The Church of Nigeria, of course, recently removed all references to the Archbishop of Canterbury from its constitution – so that will be a fascinating province to watch in its discussion about the covenant.

Go back in your time machine, say fifty years ago, and get everyone then to sign up to this “covenant”. Returning to the 21st century, probably there is now no three-tikanga Anglican church in NZ (remember the first ever motion by the Primates Meeting was trying to prevent that development – you don’t remember? Was the General Synod voting on three tikanga even informed of the Primates’ motion? – ah, the smoke signals problem again)? With a covenant in place over the last five decades or so, there probably also would now be no women priests or bishops (only five of the 44 member churches of the Anglican Communion actually have women bishops currently); probably no communion to infants prior to confirmation; probably no marriage of divorcees (what is it with two-or-three-times-married Anglicans loudly condemning gay lifelong commitment?); probably no divorced-and-remarried bishops (maybe not even so for other clergy, see 1 Timothy 3:2); in NZ (as well as not having the three tikanga structure of which we are so proud) probably not having two co-bishops running one diocese.

The marriage covenant, blessings, and pre-nups

Covenant sounds innocent enough – it’s a biblical word and those pro-covenant have traded on its biblical resonances (”covenant” is biblical therefore this covenant is biblical). But Anglicans have devoted little energy to the understanding of that most common of covenants, marriage (the Henry VIII factor?) [For example the CofE distinction between a service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed Charles and Camilla after they took their marriage vows, and ummm… a service in which the Archbishop of Canterbury would have blessed Charles and Camilla after they would have taken their marriage vows]. It is the poverty of reflection on marriage and blessings that has landed us in this current predicament. There has been little reflection on the validity or otherwise of the marriage covenant if a couple makes a prenuptial agreement. Section 4 of this Anglican Covenant is a prenuptial agreement.

To sign or not to sign – concretely

In part covenant discussions are thin because of the poor reflection not just about the theory and theology of communion – but of its ramifications in actual practice.

Imagine, for a moment, if the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia don’t sign the covenant. Very little changes. It is possible that these provinces lose voting rights in the non-binding meetings of the communion. I suspect they would still be present “as observers” and probably have speaking rights. Anglicans will still be able to receive communion in these churches, clergy will still be able to serve in these churches, Kiwi and North American clergy will still be able to serve in England under the Colonial Clergy Act. Kiwis will still be able to elect Canadian bishops.

What about if everyone does sign? Very little changes in terms of the hoped for unity of the Communion. If all do sign, my bishop, Victoria Matthews, still cannot act as a bishop in England, nor even read the bible aloud in the presence of men in some churches in our neighbouring province. Those she has ordained are not accepted as clergy in many places. Impaired communion is as impaired as ever. It will not alter the diversity (disunity?) within a province and diocese – where one parish uses lectionary and wears vestments, and a neighbouring parish defies using lectionary, liturgy, and only wears suits; where one parish denies the literal virgin birth, and a neighbouring parish requires its belief as core doctrine. The proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not do what so many of its advocates are convinced it is meant to do.

Some of the covenant’s strongest advocates will be sorely disappointed that the final version has removed the previous draft’s option of allowing ACNA and other members of the “continuing Anglican” alphabet soup and episcopoi vagantes groups an opportunity of signing up and fast-tracking acceptance into the Anglican Communion. The final draft is clear – only current member provinces of the Anglican Communion will be offered the covenant to sign. If you want to join the Anglican Communion – there’s already a process in place to do that.

Handing over your sovereignty

The previous draft twice had “[signing up to the covenant] does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” One of those has been removed in the final covenant. Certainly within post-colonialist Aotearoa-New Zealand Anglicanism there will need to be much convincing whether or not signing up to the covenant represents submission to some sort of body beyond our shores. One thing is certain: NZ Maori will not sign up to anything that hands over their tino rangatiratanga, their sovereignty over their own life. And within our constitutional arrangements, they hold veto over our corporate life.

Does it matter? – ultimately

Ultimately, of course, church, the gospel, and life are not about denominational boundaries. Actual unity and disunity lie at right angles to the denominational lines that occupy some people so intensely. A covenant or no covenant will make no difference to climate change issues, world poverty, wars, depression, recession, the search for meaning, the journey to holiness, relationship problems, unemployment, ill health,…

Ordinary Anglicans?

Published on November 8, 2009 in liturgy. 11 Comments Tags: anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, benedict xvi, chasuble, divorce, ecumenism, episcopalians, humanae vitae, roman catholics.

[Update - this post was written prior to the apostolic constitution's publication. After reading this post, you can go to the post written after its publication]

I have been promising a third post on Pope Benedict XVI’s Anglican Ordinariates.
First post
Second post

Anglican Ordinariates

Those who have been putting a positive spin on the pope’s announcement of his way for groups of “Anglicans” to join the Roman Catholic Church highlight that this can only have happened building on the ecumenical dialogue of the past few decades. It is clear that the announcement highlights some strong similarities between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. It is unlikely, for example, that this announcement will soon be followed by Benedict creating Salvation Army Ordinariates or even Baptist Ordinariates. That having been said, it is well to be reminded that the presence of Eastern Rites in union with Rome are more a stumbling block rather than encouraging of ecumenical relations between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Similarly, generally people have seen Benedict’s announcement as not forwarding ecumenism between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly the way that Cardinal Levada so very late informed the Archbishop of Canterbury of developments has been seen as a betrayal of trust, and many wonder why Rowan Williams involved himself in the announcement at all after that as it had absolutely no involvement by him prior to that. The absence of Cardinal Walter Kasper (President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) in all the media announcements spoke loudly. It is little wonder that there are rumours of his impending replacement. The process has also highlighted significant differences in approaches to governance. Some who have hitherto abhorred the infuriatingly, tediously slow, painstaking but open governance processes of Anglicanism have cause to rethink in seeing the alternative closed-door process followed by fait accompli announcements.

There has been a lot of confusion around the announcement. Roman Catholics are stressing that this announcement is in response to requests from Anglicans. A primary driver is said to be the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC). For those who are unclear, let’s just clarify: Anglican means being in communion with the See of Canterbury, just as Roman Catholic means being in communion with the See of Rome. TAC is an independent body. It is not Anglican. If TAC joins the Roman Catholic Church there is no change to the situation within the Anglican Communion. TAC is also sometimes described as composed of “former Anglicans.” That may be true for many, but certainly not all of them. TAC also has many former Roman Catholics and in fact its primate, The Most Reverend John Hepworth, is a former Roman Catholic priest.

The rumours that the Vatican will allow the Traditional Anglican Communion tradition of divorce and remarriage and not need to follow Humanae Vitae are false. Roman Catholicism does not do cafeteria catholicism – especially not under Benedict XVI. Cradle Catholics might pick and choose what they will follow or believe, but if you join up – you accept the whole package. Including practising, preaching, and teaching the Vatican’s approach to contraception.

John Hepworth was a Roman Catholic priest who left that priesthood and got married. He joined the Anglican Church of Australia as a priest. Then he joined the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia and became a bishop. He has divorced his first wife and remarried. He has three children. He is now primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion. This is clearly the sort of group that gets heated about women in ministry (about which Jesus said nothing) and committed gay relationships (about which Jesus said nothing) but has no issues with divorce and remarriage (about which Jesus did teach). Far from being accepted as a priest (let alone an Ordinary – the technical term for a leader of an Ordinariate) in an Anglican Ordinariate, John Hepworth, as a divorced and remarried man, may find he is forbidden from receiving communion as a returning member of the Roman Catholic Church (this may be a sacrifice he is willing to make in his acceptance, once again, that this is the true faith – though how he understands the Vatican’s attitude to his marriages no interviewer appears to have thought of asking him). Alternatively the Vatican might not recognise either of his marriages and Hepworth may be left to decide between his priesthood and his family with three children. Many of his followers follow the logic that committed same-sex relationships are a threat to marriage, but I suspect that most of those would regard this as a bridge too far (Tiber or no Tiber) from someone who laments this as “a time when the family is under great stress.”

Anglican extra-Ordinariates?

Regularly, estimates of the numbers who will join the RC Church are around half a million. TAC claims over 400,000 (it is a little hard to work out where these are, there are about 61 members in NZ with no buildings, there are several hundred in the UK – these have just accepted Benedict’s invitation). Some commentators note the string of Benedict’s poorly advised announcements, comments, and decisions and, with differing intensity, add the creation of Anglican Ordinariates to this list. We will have to wait and see if there is actually any weight behind the predictions and the effect that such an influx of conservative Christians (including clergy) will have on the increasingly liberal Roman Catholic communities especially in England and USA.

Predictions that at least a thousand priests would leave the Church of England over the ordination of women actually resulted in 480 taking up the financial offer involved. 80 of those later returned to the Church of England (I don’t know how many of those had the integrity to return their generous financial leaving gift). This time there will be no financial sweetener to leave. Many commentators are just assuming that stunning (neo-)gothic buildings are the property of their congregations and will go where the congregation goes. Yeah Right!

What about Roman Catholic priests who left priestly ministry to get married, have remained faithful to their marriage, and members of the Roman Catholic Church, have always wanted to be able to continue functioning as priests but have accepted their position within Roman Catholicism? Tough. There are over one hundred thousand of such priests not allowed to exercise their vocation and priesthood. Clearly they should have thought ahead, become Anglicans, then joined TAC – that might give them a chance now.

What about the difference in income between Roman Catholic priests and Anglican priests? Don’t go there. Nor to the difference in giving traditions between Anglican and Roman Catholic parishioners. (Remember Episcopalians are expected to tithe). Cheap labour has never been brought up as a reason for compulsory celibacy.

What about the camp culture in some Anglo-Catholicism? The RC Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered. On November 29, 2005, the Congregation for Catholic Education which oversees seminary formation affirmed, “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.” (no more jokes in the vestry – sorry sacristy – about the quality of the lace). As to transitory adolescence-like homosexual problems: “such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.” Furthermore, his spiritual director and confessor are duty-bound to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding toward ordination. The Vatican has made very clear – the ruling against ordaining men with any homosexual tendencies applies in all contexts. That includes Anglican Ordinariates. “Single” Anglican priests may well think twice before crossing this bridge let alone burning it.

Ordinary Anglicans?

A lot of Roman Catholic commentators appear to have little understanding that much of African Anglicanism is as anti-RC as it is anti-women in ministry/committed same sex relationships. These commentators think that those Africans unhappy with the Anglican Communion will naturally tend to take up Benedict’s offer. Nigerian Anglicans, one of the larger provinces, may have removed communion with the See of Canterbury from their Constitution, but I can assure you, you will not be hearing Hail Marys from their churches. These are part of the GAFCON movement which will be far more deeply affected by the unethical investment policies of the Sydney Anglican Diocese which financially underpins it and recently lost $160 million, than by the pope’s announcement. Remember Sydney requires its Anglican clergy to sign they will not follow such popish practices as wearing a chasuble or adding water to the wine.

Every Anglican priest who joins the RC Church will have to accept Apostolicae Curae that his priesthood was “absolutely null and utterly void.” He will have to accept that the deep reverence that he, as an Anglo-Catholic priest brought to his liturgical celebrations was play acting with fancy clothes on. He was deluded, and should he wish to function as a real priest, he will need to be ordained twice again.

For many Anglican priests and faithful joining an Anglican Ordinariate, this will be their first regular encounter with Anglican liturgy. These have been proudly and principally using the Roman Rite all their lives. Once in an Anglican Ordinariate, however, they abandon Anglican breadth, flexibility, and allowance for eccentricities. Anglican Ordinariates will follow Anglican liturgy slightly adapted. For ordinary Anglicans, this may be the final irony.

comments policy

After reading this post, you can go to the post written after its publication

End of Anglican Communion?

Published on October 21, 2009 in liturgy. 43 Comments Tags: anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, catholic, new zealand, ordination, roman catholic, Rowan Williams, sydney anglicans, twitter, vatican.

Update: I am thrilled with the interest in this post, which is currently running about a reader every 8 seconds. It is also gratifying to see such helpful and positive comments. If there are any developments, rather than altering this post I think I would produce another – I already have some ideas in mind. So if you are interested, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or other ways of seeing what is new here.
Update: part 2 of this reflection is here

A few hours ago there was an absolute internet frenzy as people predicted and then reported, tweet by tweet, the announcement from the Vatican and the joint press conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster.

Let me add my own initial thoughts to this confusing dust-cloud following the announcement that the pope will create “Personal Ordinariates” for Anglicans who wish to come home to Rome. Archbishop Rowan said that it would be a “serious mistake” to view the development as a response to the difficulties within the Anglican Communion. As we in New Zealand say: “Yeah right!”

To anyone who has been watching the direction that Pope Benedict has been moving, and those he has been welcoming into his fold, the commentary that this is “surprising” is itself surprising. Just to mention recent events that have been in the news: the reconciliation with Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson and his Society of St. Pius X, the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” giving wider possibility to celebrate the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, reconciliation with the traditionalist “Transalpine Redemptorists,” and so forth. I want to highlight some things I have not yet seen mentioned:

married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate

They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination. In the tweeting frenzy Scott Richert wrote, “There is no warrant in tradition for marrying AFTER receiving Holy Orders. None.” He may very well be right. I am genuinely interested in this point, and hope that people in the comments box below might provide evidence for or against this. My reply to him for clarification has not yet been responded to.

bishops in Anglican Personal Ordinariates are celibate

there has been no rescinding of Apostolicae Curae.

Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate.

From a church (New Zealand Anglican) that leads Christian history in having created a “Tikanga” structure (where there are parallel episcopal jurisdictions according to cultural streams) I am intrigued by the concept of “Personal Ordinariates.” These are described by John Allen as “non-territorial diocese” (which sounds like an oxymoron to me!) My comment to Scott Richert and anyone else is: There is no warrant in tradition for “Personal Ordinariates.” None. But, of course, as usual, I am very very comfortable to be demonstrated wrong on this also. Please… anyone?

The end of the Anglican Communion?

As Mark Twain would say, “The reports of the end of the Anglican Communion are greatly exaggerated.” Andrew Brown, a regular person lining up for the funeral of the Communion, highlights his own weak grasp on the issues by declaring that only homosexuals can be celibate! Clearly heterosexuals, it would appear according to him, are either too weak or too immoral to be able to control their urges (not to mention that Andrew Brown is unable to distinguish doctrine from discipline). Scott Richert may have a slightly better grasp on the consequences for Anglicanism. Whilst no one would want to impugn curate’s-egg motives to the Archbishop of Canterbury, one cannot help wondering if there is just the flicker of a smile under that beard. In one Roman gesture he may be rid of, at one estimate, up to 2,000 of his CofE priests who have been holding out against his strong conviction for women in all three orders. Rowan Williams is well-known for ordaining openly practising homosexuals. Traditionalist Anglicans around the globe have struggled with women and with gays in a committed relationship being ordained. Commentators are repeatedly highlighting that this is an invitation from Rome to misogynists and homophobes.

In North America some Anglicans formed a new denomination The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). This brings together two extremes of the Anglican spectrum – Rome-facing and Geneva-facing. This marriage of convenience, like the 1977 followers of the Affirmation of St. Louis, cannot last, as, at its heart it is united around being against one thing. Rome’s declaration cannot but affect it. If the Rome-facing ACNA (married) bishops can stomach losing their purple, pectoral crosses, honorary doctoral gowns, and complex titles, they may yet lead their groups home to Rome. This will impact the attempt of some Anglicans to produce a “covenant”. Nigerian “Anglicans” have already formally removed the Archbishop of Canterbury from their constitution. Sydney Anglicans, leaders in GAFON/FOCA/Mainstream, are now not only struggling with theology, church history, and liturgical practice, but have recently realised they haven’t been that good at investments either (their $265 million assets are now worth $105 million). This Geneva-facing, congregationalist end of the Anglican spectrum does not need a Communion in the way that others see it. Rome’s announcement may help towards trimming off the extremes leaving an Anglican Communion that is certainly leaner but hopefully spending far less energy on peripherals and with a stronger focus on the end of the Communion, in the sense of the purpose of the church.

It is not the numbers inside the church that is ultimately significant IMO. It is the focus on service – in the two senses: our liturgical worship of God, and our service to God by our care of people and God’s world. Anglicanism may yet, through this, become more clearly a 21st century church episcopally led, synodically governed, and adapted for the particular context in which it finds itself, working “together with other Provinces and with our ecumenical and interfaith partners to promote God’s reign on earth.”

comments policy

part 2 of this reflection is here

part 3 of this reflection is here

The Very Revd Samy Fawzy Shehata and the Archbishop of Canterbury

As we plummet towards Lent, many parishes, Christian communities, and individuals will be gearing up for the busyest time of the church year. This site is dedicated to quality worship and contemplative spirituality – counter-cultural values. Sadly, often counter-cultural for Christian communities. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently dedicated St. Mark’s pro-Cathedral in Alexandria, Egypt, and installed the dean, the Very Revd. Samy Fawzy Shehata. Archbishop Rowan, in his sermon which Dean Sammy is seen here translating into Arabic, made strong points about a church schedule which is filled rather than simplified. Maybe, even now, we can consider doing less (and praying more!) for Lent:

Many years ago I lived in a town where there was a very active church indeed. Outside this church was an enormous notice board, it must have been about six feet square. It seemed that every single moment of the week was taken up by activity, but I’ve no doubt that it was a very good church and a very loving and prayerful parish.

And yet that notice board used to worry me and it still does. It seems to me that it speaks of an idea of the church which supposes that the church is about human beings doing things. When you looked at that church you would have thought what a lot of things they do here, but I am still wondering if anybody ever asked does God do things here? There seemed to be just a slight risk that there was hardly any room in the week for God to find his way in among all these activities…

So my hope and my prayer for this church and this congregation is this: May it be a place about which people say, “Jesus is alive there.” May it be a place where human beings are coming alive because Jesus is alive. May it be a place where people are learning how to pray because they are listening to Jesus praying in his body. And may the notice board outside never be too crowded.

The full text of the sermon is here (surprisingly, for an official Anglican site, “God” is rendered as “god” – I have corrected this above.)

Podcast of the sermon

Archbishop of Canterbury’s Christmas Message to the Anglican Communion

Published on December 16, 2008 in liturgy and spirituality. Closed Tags: Anglican, anglican church, anglican communion, archbishop of canterbury, christmas.

Human beings, left to themselves, have imagined God in all sorts of shapes; but – although there were one or two instances, in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt, of gods being pictured as boys – it took Christianity to introduce the world to the idea of God in the form of a baby: in the form of complete dependence and fragility, without power or control. If you stop to think about it, it is still shocking. And it is also deeply challenging.

God chose to show himself to us in a complete human life, telling us that every stage in human existence, from conception to maturity and even death, was in principle capable of telling us something about God. Although what we learn from Jesus Christ and what his life makes possible is unique, that life still means that we look differently at every other life. There is something in us that is capable of communicating what God has to say – the image of God in each of us, which is expressed in its perfection only in Jesus.

Hence the reverence which as Christians we ought to show to human beings in every condition, at every stage of existence. This is why we cannot regard unborn children as less than members of the human family, why those with disabilities or deprivations have no less claim upon us than anyone else, why we try to makes loving sense of human life even when it is near its end and we can hardly see any signs left of freedom or thought.

And hence the concern we need to have about the welfare of children. As we look around the world, there is plenty to prompt us to far more anger and protest about what happens to children than we often seem to feel or express. In the UK this year there have been several public debates about childhood, as research has underlined the lack of emotional security felt by many children here, the high cost of divorce and family breakdown, the disproportionate effect of poverty and debt on children, and many other problems. We look forward to the publication here in the New Year of a nationwide survey about what people think is a ‘good childhood’ – sponsored by the Children’s Society, with its long association with the Anglican Church.

Elsewhere we see far more horrendous sights – child soldiers still deployed in parts of Africa and in Sri Lanka, the burden laid on children in places where HIV and AIDS have wiped out a whole generation, leaving only the old and the young, the fate of children in areas of conflict like Congo and the Middle East and the insensitive treatment that is so often given to child refugees and asylum seekers in more prosperous countries.

‘Though an infant now we view him, He shall fill his Father’s throne’ says the Christmas hymn. If it is true that the child of Bethlehem is the same one who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, how shall we stand before him if we have allowed his image in the children of the world to be abused and defaced? In the week I write this, the British public is trying to cope with the revelation of the shocking killing of a very small child. Recently I accompanied a number of students and British faith leaders on a pilgrimage to the extermination camps at Auschwitz, where some of the most unforgettably horrifying images have to do with the wholesale slaughter of Jewish children – their toys and clothes still on display, looted by their killers from their dead bodies.

Christmas is a good time to think again about our attitudes to children and about what happens to children in our societies. Christians who recognise the infinite and all-powerful God in the vulnerability of a newborn baby have every reason to ask hard questions about the ways in which children come to be despised, exploited, even feared in our world. We all suspect that in a time of economic crisis worldwide, it will be the most vulnerable who are left to carry most of the human cost. The Holy Child of Bethlehem demands of us that we resist this with all our strength, for the sake of the one who, though he was rich, for our sake became poor, became helpless with the helpless so that he might exalt us all through his mercy and abundant grace.

With every blessing and best wish for Christmas and the New Year.

+Rowan Cantuar

Anglican Communion News Service

New or True Anglican Communion – BREAKING NEWS

Published on December 14, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: american province, Anglican, anglican church, anglican church in north america, anglican communion, anglicans, archbishop of canterbury, episcopal church.

Bishop Phineas Angus Rody will not recognise the new “Anglican” North American Province. He thinks the founders of this province are bigoted and clearly prejudiced against homosexuals. “They regularly quote Leviticus 18:22 against homosexual activity, but they just pick and choose a verse out of context. Three verses earlier is a whole teaching for heterosexuals – a quarter of the time men and women cannot even sit on the same couch or lie on the same bed. Why are they not teaching about that? You cannot be a true Anglican unless you teach the full bible, not just fit in with people who find homosexuality icky – Leviticus 18:19 is pretty icky too – why is that not quoted?”

Having first thought that the new province might become a home for full-Bible-believing Anglicans, he regards himself as not so much splitting from this split, but this new province as “watered-down, crypto-liberal, and world-compromising”. He is starting not a new province, but a whole new communion. In fact he doesn’t regard this as a “new” communion at all, but the “true” communion.

A parallel Anglican Communion?

He titles himself “the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Phineas Angus Rody” and claims he is the “True Archbishop of Canterbury”. Unlike the pope (one time there were three all claiming to be pope), I know of no recorded “anti”-Archbishop of Canterbury. But these are strange and stressful times. With the recent announcement of a parallel “Anglican” province comes the announcement of a whole new Anglican Communion. Only this time claiming it is not new – in fact it is the true one!

A key to the formation of the new North American Province is Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Bishop Phineas Angus Rody, who has apparently come out of nowhere, stresses that Leviticus 18 must be read, taught, and followed “as a whole”. “These so-called Anglicans are clearly prejudiced against homosexuals, taking Leviticus as a whole is even more challenging to heterosexuals – yet we never hear about that,” says Bishop Phineas. He highlights Leviticus 18:19 which teaches a woman is impure for seven days from the start of her menstrual period.

Post-colonial Anglicanism

“We are the post-colonial Anglican Communion. I first thought I could work in partnership with Akinola [referring to Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria who has also removed the need to be in communion with Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury from Nigeria's church constitution] but then found he was mixing his seeds on his lawn. He is not even disciplining his clergy who have mules [Leviticus 19:19]! Duncan [former Episcopal Church Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan] wears a chimere mixing wool and polyester, and a rochet of cotton and polyester. I know it’s convenient and comfortable, but how can I extend the right hand of fellowship to such a person? How can you lead worship with integrity with such a person? How can you preach vehemently about one verse of Leviticus, and do that in robes clearly in breach of another verse in Leviticus [19:19]?”

“This is far bigger than people’s usual parody about God hating prawns. Teachings like the impurity of women during 7 days each cycle are eternally-binding moral precepts. We have heard far too much about inclusiveness on the one hand, and holiness on the other, and far too little about menstruation!”

PA Rody clearly believes in his movement. He has contacted Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times, to get a front page story. “That a small splinter group, of a denomination forming 1% of North America’s population warranted a front page story in The New York Times means there is something far more newsworthy here. Duncan may have said “The Lord is displacing the Episcopal Church” but here, clearly the Lord is displacing the Anglican Communion.” PA Rody hopes that people will flood from the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) in their tens. “If we can get a small percentage of that small percentage of that one percent we will soon have enough to form a grain of salt to begin to make a difference.” Meanwhile he and his wife are working hard to produce a constitution, canons, and a catechism.

More can be found on the website of the True Anglican Communion

TAC also comes before TEC in any up-to-date list for religious seekers.

The Archbishop of Canterbury on Advent

Published on November 28, 2008 in liturgy and spirituality. Closed Tags: advent, Anglican, archbishop of canterbury, episcopalians, Rowan Williams.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, gives his reflections on Advent: “It is a time of expectation and a time of hope. A time, therefore, also of quiet”.

website quoted in newspaper

Published on October 18, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: anglicanism, archbishop of canterbury, archbishop rowan williams, church of england newspaper, protestant truth society, roman catholics.

You can imagine my surprise when a friend of mine informed me that I am quoted in this week’s edition (17 October) of the Church of England Newspaper. The author of the article has read my reflection Roman Catholics accept Archbishop of Canterbury’s orders? and this is what s/he writes:

Lourdes questions for Dr Williams

Critics have lambasted Dr. Williams for departing from Anglican tradition and acceding to the Roman Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary. While the content of Dr. Williams’ sermon has aroused the ire of Protestants, the fact that his sermon took place during a Roman Catholic mass has intrigued liturgists, who note that Roman Catholic canon law only permits Catholic clergy to preach at a mass.

New Zealand liturgist, the Rev. Bosco Peters, observed that by allowing Dr. Williams to preach at Lourdes, “Roman Catholics appear to be accepting that the Archbishop of Canterbury is validly ordained.”

The Rt. Rev. Jacques Perrier, the Catholic bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes invited Dr. Williams to preach at the international mass, where Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, celebrated.

While Canon 766 permits Catholic bishops to authorize lay persons to preach in Catholic churches, canon 767 restricts preaching at masses to Catholic clergy. “Every Catholic seminarian would know this from seminary’s Liturgy 101. So in inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach at such an internationally significant Roman Catholic Mass are they acknowledging that Archbishop Rowan Williams is validly ordained?” Mr. Peters asked.

The Rev. Jeremy Brooks, Director of Ministry of the Protestant Truth Society took umbrage at Dr Williams’ visit and homily at Lourdes, calling it a “wholesale compromise” and “complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy.”

In his Sept 26 homily Dr. Williams stated that “when Mary came to Bernadette, she came at first as an anonymous figure, a beautiful lady, a mysterious ‘thing’, not yet identified as the Lord’s spotless mother.” The archbishop further stated that in response to the apparition of Mary, “Bernadette – uneducated, uninstructed in doctrine – leapt with joy, recognising that here was life, here was healing.”

These assertions go against traditional Anglican formularies as found in the Articles of Religion, critics asserted. Identifying Mary as the “Lord’s spotless mother,” a reference to her immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, contradicts Article XV. “Of Christ alone without Sin.”

The statement that in Mary, “here was life, here was healing,” appears to contradict Article XVIII, that life and healing along come from Christ, which states “For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

“Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation ejected, including apparitions, Mariolatry and the veneration of saints,” Mr. Brooks said.

“At a time when our country is crying out for clear Biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant archbishop is behaving as little more than a papal puppet,” he charged.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s visit to Lourdes last month continues to be a source of controversy within the Anglican Communion and the wider Christian church.

Roman Catholics accept Archbishop of Canterbury’s orders?

Published on October 6, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: anglicans, archbishop of canterbury, bernadette soubirous, catholics, lourdes, ordination, validity of anglican orders.

Much fuss has been made of the preaching by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at a Roman Catholic Mass at Lourdes celebrating 150 years since the 1858 vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary to 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous. The Protestant Truth Society accused Archbishop Rowan as “behaving as little more than a Papal puppet”. What has, it seems to me, been lost in this dust-storm, is that in inviting the Archbishop to preach Roman Catholics appear to be accepting that the Archbishop of Canterbury is validly ordained.

On the feast of Our Lady of Walsingham, the Archbishop, referring to Mary as “the Lord’s spotless Mother” and “Mother of God”, takes the apparitions as a given: “When Mary came to Bernadette, she came at first as an anonymous figure, a beautiful lady, a mysterious ‘thing’, not yet identified as the Lord’s spotless mother,” he said. “Only bit by bit does Bernadette find the words to let the world know; only bit by bit, we might say, does she discover how to listen to the Lady and echo what she has to tell us.”

Rev. Jeremy Brooks, Director of Ministry, of the Protestant Truth Society said: ‘All true Protestants will be appalled at the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury has visited Lourdes, and preached there as a part of the 150th anniversary celebrations at the Roman Catholic shrine. Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation rejected, including apparitions, mariolatry and the veneration of saints. The Archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “The Mother of God” is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy. At a time when our country is crying out for clear Biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant Archbishop is behaving as little more than a Papal puppet.’

Roman Catholics accept Archbishop of Canterbury’s orders

Roman Catholic bishops may authorise lay persons to preach in Catholic churches (canon 766), but according to canon 767 only a priest or deacon may preach at Mass. Every Catholic seminarian would know this from seminary’s Liturgy 101. So in inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach at such an internationally significant Roman Catholic Mass are they acknowledging that Archbishop Rowan Williams is validly ordained?

The 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, pronounced Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”. Since then, however, Roman Catholics have themselves reformed their ordination rites making them highly similar to Anglican ones. And since 1931 Anglicans and Old Catholics have been in full communion. Old Catholic orders are accepted as valid by the Vatican, and Old Catholics have, since 1931, been fully involved in Anglican ordinations, restoring continuity in the minds of those who considered there had been some sort of “break”.

Full text of Archbishop Rowan Williams’ homily

Catholic bishop accepts validity of Anglican orders?