Tag Archive for 'chasuble'

the end of the dalmatic?

Should priests dress up as deacons?

"subdeacon" in tunicle, priest in chasuble, "deacon" in dalmatic

"subdeacon" in tunicle, priest in chasuble, "deacon" in dalmatic

This post is the sequel to the discussion whether we should ordain per saltum.

Many communities have a tradition (or are developing, or seeking to develop a tradition) of a Eucharist with a presiding priest, a deacon, and a subdeacon (see photo on the left by Gordon Plumb).

Leaving to one side the often-not-insignificant emotional issues of neglecting to use a wardrobe full of glorious (expensive) matching vestments, and possibly not over-stressing the value of colour(fulness) in liturgy, one question I would like to explore here is: is it appropriate for a priest to dress (and function) as a deacon in the liturgy?

Options I can think of for “Should priests dress up as deacons?” are:

1) Symbolism should express and enhance reality. A priest is not a deacon, even if once ordained a deacon – when they are ordained priest they cease to be a deacon. One does not collect orders like a set of postage stamps or Russsian dolls. Only deacons should dress and function as deacons.

2) Symbolism should express and enhance reality. Priests are still deacons. They can dress and function as deacons.

3) The role of the deacon is a good model for shared leadership at the Eucharist without detracting and distracting from the presiding of the priest. Dalmatics should not be left in the wardrobe. Their colourful presence enriches worship and need no longer be connected to their historical origin or theological positions about ordination expressed in 1 & 2 above.

If you/your community has lay people dressed in a dalmatic – would they have lay people dressed in alb and diagonal stole? Why or why not?

There may be other variants and options that can be added to the comments.

Should lay people dress up as deacons?

Slightly simpler options I think:

1) No. Symbolism should express and enhance reality. They are not deacons. Vesting them as deacons confuses both the ministry of the laity and the ministry of deacons.

2) Yes. Until the diaconate is seriously renewed, with each community with one or more deacons, the important role of the deacon in liturgy will need to be exercised by lay persons. The role of the deacon is a good model for shared leadership at the Eucharist without detracting and distracting from the presiding of the priest. Dalmatics should not be left in the wardrobe. Their colourful presence enriches worship and need no longer be connected to their historical origin or theological positions about ordination.

The subdeacon was an ecclesiastical institution created by the church, rather than regarded as an order of ministry. It ceased in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church in 1973. The subdeacon’s vesture is the tunicle. There, hence, appears no theological or liturgical reason against having lay persons vested in a tunicle.

ps. I was sorely tempted to call this post One Hundred and One Dalmatics, or to weave 101 Dalmatics into the text. I’m still not sure whether resisting that temptation was the right thing to do.

Ordinary Anglicans?

[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

Liturgical adviser to Hollywood

DoubtI just saw the 2008 wonderful movie “Doubt”. I have previously seen this 2004 play by John Patrick Shanley on stage. The story is a strong parable about the place of doubt in our uncertain world and lives – even binding us together, and, clearly, sometimes driving us apart.

Some people, the story suggests, shore up our nagging, disorientating doubts with rules, regulations and prejudice.

The sisters in the story are based on the Sisters of Charity of New York. These were  founded by St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and have much in common with the Daughters of Charity founded by St. Vincent de Paul.

Some of the symbolism, in this Lenten season, is very overt. Holding the image of the crucified Jesus Sister Aloysius reminds us that sometimes in the pursuit of evil one takes a step away from God.

The issue of inappropriate priestly behaviour, so topical, is only one dimension, however, of this exploration of the strengths and weaknesses, the positiveness and abuses, of our religious tradition and our scaffolding for healthy spiritual growth. The place of doubt as the growing edge of our faith is here provided with a strong platform for reflection – although personally I found the immediacy of the play more gripping and gruelling than this film adaptation.

Part of what broke the suspension of disbelief was the very opening shot with the 1960s Father Flynn with his wonderful sermon – but wearing his stole over his chasuble in a very (anachronistic) un-1960s fashion! (pictured) This seemed to be the style of his green vesting, absent when he vested in purple. The singing by the choir of a (now) well-known Taize chant also stretched credibility. If you are going to have a detective movie – get some police advice. If you are going to show a surgery – get a surgeon’s advice. If you are going to show a religious movie (and it’s great these are in the mainstream!) please get some appropriate, competent ecclesiastical advice. I’m here Hollywood (price on application)!

Watch out for the magnificent sermon on gossip.

(Watch for stole shot – 47 seconds)

Sydney undermines catholicism

deacons presidingSydney’s Anglican diocesan synod has affirmed that deacons may preside at the eucharist.

Sydney Anglicans, unsatisfied with being as protestant/neo-puritan as possible within Anglicanism’s wide spectrum, have decided to continue to be hell-bent to destroy catholicism. Without changing any legislation, they have used Orwellian newspeak to affirm that deacons may preside at the eucharist under current legislation and without further authorisation, and that lay people may do so with a bishop’s licence.

Bishop Alan Wilson (CofE) has said it well

The genius of Anglicanism, its missional crown jewels within the whole Kingdom of God, has been its ability to run essentially (but not exclusively) primitive Evangelical software on essentially (but not exclusively) primitive Catholic hardware.

Within Catholicism one could hardly find a more sensitive issue than to fool about with the Holy Eucharist and its celebration. The Church of England Newspaper, well known for its “conservative evangelical stance”, without explanation, has put the clearly Roman Catholic or Anglican Catholic photograph (above) on its front page article (31 October) with the heading “Sydney says deacons can now preside”. It knows (a picture is worth a thousand words) the measure is primarily anti-catholic. Sydney is cutting off its face to spite its nose.

Sydney anti-catholic

In a diocese in which celebrating the eucharist three or four times a year would not raise and eyebrow, claims that there is a shortage of priests, and that the measure is mission-focused are clearly cynical.

Sydney is well-known for anti-catholic measures. Priests there are forbidden from wearing a chasuble at the eucharist. Whilst vociferously quoting from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) when it fits with its particular style of Calvinist Gnosticism, the Sydney diocese picks and chooses when to apply it. It does not merely breach the BCP’s requirement of a chasuble at the eucharist, but forbids its clergy from following that requirement!

sixteenth century chasubleThe Book of Common Prayer has, since 1559, had the rubric “such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Clearly the chasuble is required by the Prayer Book (photo: example of the type worn during the second year of the reign of King Edward VI). Puritans regularly insisted on presiding in their street clothes, or peasant’s jacket. One priest wanted to make his point by wearing his hat during the service. The authorities made concessions, allowing the surplice to suffice, although the rubric was not changed.

Sydney diocese has for 25 years been advocating lay-presidency of the eucharist (which they term “administering the Lord’s Supper”). In 2003 the legal steps were begun by rescinding Section 10 of the 1662 Act of Uniformity as it applied in Sydney. Section 10 states “only episcopally ordained priests may consecrate the Holy Communion.”

Post-modern newspeak

Last year a request went from the Australian General Synod to the appellate tribunal asking whether the church’s constitution prevented a woman becoming a bishop. By the smallest of margins (4-3) they ruled that it was the actual wording, not the intention of legislation that was important. Under current legislation women could be bishops and no further debate was required at the General Synod level. Sydney’s theology of headship – that a woman could not have authority over a man – was clearly upset. But Sydney found a way to get the rest of the church back.

North Sydney’s Bishop Glenn Davies chaired a committee that argued from the appellate tribunal’s post-modern ruling that the intent of legislation is not primary and combined this with Sydney’s penchant for altering the word preside to “administer”. They concluded that references to deacons “administering the sacraments” in liturgies and statutes meant that, without any change of legislation, deacons are in fact already authorized to preside at the eucharist. At Sydney’s synod, Resolution 7.2 “Lay and diaconal administration” was resoundingly passed.

Let us hope that Sydney does not continue this post-modern hermeneutic into the scriptures…

FOCAs

Anyone familiar with the 1977 Affirmation of St. Louis and the rapid fragmentation of that confessional movement will not be surprised if the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON)’s Jerusalem Declaration and the resulting Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (Foca) fragments. But few predicted that the source would have been one of the chief leading factions. The Focas federate unlikely bedfellows (anti-ordaining-women Anglo-catholics and anti-vestment Sydneyites!) around a single issue. The secretariat of Focas is based in the Diocesan Offices of Sydney. The Honorary Secretary of the Focas is the Archbishop of Sydney. The Jerusalem Declaration has “7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.”

Well known Anglican theologian and author, Dr Peter Toon, whilst very sympathetic to Sydney’s end of the Anglican spectrum now writes

My earnest suggestion to the leadership of GAFCON is this:

After appropriate warning, the Council of Primates of GAFCON should expel the Bishops and Diocese of Sydney immediately: by this action GAFCON will maintain its committed to the biblical, classic Anglican Way and will show that it does take discipline (a mark of the true church) seriously.

If GAFCON does nothing and allows the Diocese of Sydney, with its innovatory doctrine, and pride in that innovation, to remain as a full member, then GAFCON will become, and will be seen by thousands, as merely and only an international, Evangelical Anglican Group — with no serious claims to a serious catholic ecclesiology and historic Ministry, and no real opportunity or intention to set a godly example to the whole Anglican Communion of Churches.

Sydney is revisionist

Clearly it is the Sydney diocese that is revisionist. The Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen highlighted their confused inclusivism when he said “We want to turn the diaconate into a real diaconate… We don’t want to specialise the presbyters in administering the Lord’s Supper… but we want them to specialise in their incumbency.”

Rather than having a “real” diaconate, this makes different callings and ministries identical. I have long been distressed about the clericalisation of “lay ministry” in which lay ministry is perceived to be a reality not at home, at work, on the streets, at play, and in the shops, but what one does in the sanctuary! Here, clearly, is another occasion in which there has been no significant reflection on priesthood as the ordained ministry of leadership of the Christian community gathered in service, and diaconate is the ordained ministry of leadership of the Christian community dispersed for service in the world.

I leave the penultimate word to the wise comment from Bishop Alan Wilson

Back last century, John Shelby Spong led the charge for lay presidency in his book Why Christianity must Change or Die. It looks as though this issue has now reached what one might call the Jensen Spong Vanishing Point. The whole matter was considered very fully by the 1998 Lambeth conference, which decisively rejected it. So 98 Lambeth 1:10 is to die for, and 98 Lambeth 3:22 is to dynamite. Simultaneously. Illogical, Captain?

Part of Sydney’s argument included – deacons can baptise so they must be able to preside at the eucharist. But non-Christians can baptise! I’m waiting for the logic to kick in for the next headline: Sydney has non-Christians leading its Lord’s Supper services. Now that’s mission focused!