Tag Archive for 'ordination'

We have a blogging bishop!

Published on March 1, 2010 in liturgy. 4 Comments Tags: , , .

The-Rev-Dr-Kelvin-Wright-the-man-chosen-to-lead-the-Anglican-Diocese-of-Dunedin_randomImageOn Saturday Kelvin Wright was ordained bishop in St Paul’s cathedral, Dunedin. The number of bishops in our province is now 31. He is the first to run a blog. I hope it will continue. I also hope, from time to time, he might pop in to this site. And I hope he will consider placing a link to this site on his blog. His blog is called Available Light.

There are a number of blogging bishops in the links of this site. If you are a blogging bishop, or know of any, please add this to the comments. If your site links to this one, please let me know, as normally I try to link back.

May God bless Kelvin’s ministry in the real world and in the virtual world.

ps. I wonder if he will change the URL from “vendr”
pps. There was an attempt apparently to stream the ordination live without huge success. If a video of this is uploaded to Youtube or elsewhere, please indicate this in the comments also so I can embed it here for others.
ppps. You can read more about Kelvin in the Otago Daily Times

the end of the dalmatic?

Published on February 13, 2010 in liturgy. 31 Comments Tags: , , , , .

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.

Anglican Covenant – strength of weak ties

Published on February 7, 2010 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Bible Alone

It continues to intrigue me that those who hold to a Bible-Alone, sola scriptura position regularly continue to clamour in favour of the proposed Anglican Covenant. This more protestant, “reformed” end of the Anglican spectrum on the one hand claims the Bible Alone is totally sufficient for all our Christian needs, that the Bible is totally self-explanatory, and that the Bible does not need to be supplemented by any other documents. Yet on the other hand: these same people feel that Anglicanism cannot survive without the Anglican Covenant. Ie. the Bible alone is not sufficient. Make up your mind people: is the Bible alone sufficient or isn’t it?!

Completing the Reformation

Some pro-Anglican-Covenant people speak about the need to “complete the Reformation”. Certainly, many at the Reformation created confessional denominations increasingly dividing over disagreements over interpretations of their lists of beliefs. The Anglican Covenant will either include everyone currently Anglican (and so will alter nothing, have only delayed discussion about the real issue, and wasted jet-engine fuel). Or it will complete the Reformation’s tendency towards ever-increasing fragmentation by splintering the frail bonds that bind Anglicans together.

The Anglican Communion and the strength of weak ties

Without using theological-babble (or “Rowanspeak”) it is very hard to ascertain what those who are pro-the Covenant concretely want and expect from a “Communion”. Certainly we would hope a communicant anywhere is a communicant everywhere in the Communion. Even that principle has been stretched to breaking with some provinces communicating all the baptised, some needing a rite of “admission to communion” at an age of “understanding”, and some needing episcopal confirmation before receiving communion. I am sure that toddlers from the first option may have difficulty receiving communion in provinces with the last option. Another principle is the mutual recognition of ordination, so that clergy in one province can function as clergy in another province. That principle has long been broken with women clergy, and male clergy ordained by women bishops, from one province unable to function as clergy in other provinces. Attitudes to divorce and remarriage vary from province to province, affecting communicant status and acceptability of remarried clergy. All this will not change one iota should the Anglican Covenant be accepted.

Sociologist Mark Granovetter, in the highly influential 1973 paper on social networking “The Strength of Weak Ties”, argues our close friends will be quite similar to us. Acquaintances differ more from us and will have their own networks of close friends. We have strong ties to our friends, and weak ties to acquaintances. Granovetter argues persuasively for the value of having both strong and weak ties – they have different functions, enhancing both our flourishing and theirs.

Strong ties (friends) are like an Anglican province. Weak ties (acquaintances) are like our inter-provincial ties across the Anglican Communion. Many who are pro-Covenant appear unable to articulate a difference between a diocese, a province, and a communion – these appear to be seeking that the communion function essentially in the way that most of us understand a diocese to function (or possibly a province).

A previous post: the Anglican Covenant will not do what it is meant to do

A helpful site for deeper reflection is the World Anglicanism Forum run by Bruce Kaye, an Anglican theologian, Foundation editor of the Journal of Anglican Studies. Currently a Visiting Research Fellow in History at the University of New South Wales and a Professorial Associate in Theology at Charles Sturt University.

per saltum ordination

Published on February 3, 2010 in liturgy. 20 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Direct ordination or not?

Priesthood is normally understood as church-facing/Christian-community-facing leadership. Priests gather and lead the Christian community gathering (breathing in).

Priests in the Church are called to build up Christ’s congregation,
to strengthen the baptised…
to be pastors…
to declare forgiveness through Jesus Christ,
to baptise,
to preside at the Eucharist,
to administer Christ’s holy sacraments.
NZ Anglican ordinal, Prayer Book pg 901

Deacons, on the other hand, are ordained to world-facing, sacrificial leadership. They lead the Christian community dispersed in service in the world (breathing out).

Deacons in the Church of God serve in the name of Christ,
and so remind the whole Church
that serving others is essential to all ministry.
NZ Anglican ordinal, Prayer Book pg 891

Currently, to be ordained a priest (church-facing leadership) you have to be ordained a deacon first (world-facing leadership). This is termed “sequential ordination”. If God is calling you to church-facing leadership rather than world-facing leadership – tough! So most people perceive deacons as apprentice priests. And those God calls to the diaconate (and not to priesthood) are regularly seen as people who haven’t made the grade and are stuck in their apprenticeship.

In the Latin Rite of Roman Catholicism (the majority of Roman Catholics), “permanent deacons” can marry (prior to ordination) and then regularly do priest-like ministry (church-facing, rather than world-facing) because of a shortage of celibate priests. [Other Roman Catholic rites allow for married priests and have a stronger tradition of a clearly differentiated diaconate]

(Unfortunately) I have regularly seen people who once said strongly they were called to the diaconate, after a period decide they were called to priesthood after all. I can only quickly think of one person, I know personally, called to the diaconate who has stayed a deacon.

[I am not in this post going to bring bishops into the discussion. There is an ongoing dispute about the nature of bishops:
Are bishops priests to whom we have delegated the authority to ordain (the position of St Jerome)?
Or are priests delegates of the bishop in the local congregation (so that when the bishop is present the priest ought not to function in that ministry - the position of Theodore of Mopsuestia)?]

As I wrote above, currently to become a priest one must be a deacon first. A different approach, “direct ordination” or “per saltum ordination” (literally “by a leap”) is the understanding that you be ordained directly to the order to which God calls you. If you are to be a deacon, you are ordained a deacon (the current practice); if you are to be a priest, you would be ordained a priest (not a deacon first). Some scholars argue that in the early church all ordinations were per saltum (see Hallenbeck ed. Orders of Ministry). St Ambrose’s direct ordination to the episcopate is probably the most celebrated story.

There seems a surprising amount of emotional energy invested in maintaining the status quo. We have probably all met bishops proudly (sic!) proclaiming “I am still a deacon!” Episcopal Cafe has presented two interesting posts about the emotional dimension against per saltum ordination (part 1; part 2).There is also a discussion about this in the discussion area of Sarah Dylan Breuer’s facebook page. Some theologians hold that per saltum ordinations would be invalid. What is your position? And in the comments area – why?

There will be a sequel to this post in the near future.

priest is my altar ego

Published on November 18, 2009 in liturgy. 25 Comments Tags: , , , .

Occasionally one encounters an internet troll. Their aim is merely to pick a fight. Recently I had a person on twitter take issue with my calling myself a priest.

This person claims to be a church leader (not a priest!) in a well-known denomination, claims to be able to read Greek, etc. But he could not and would not answer my simple question posed in different ways: “what is the origin of the English word priest?” Even after I twice sent him links on the etymology of the English word priest. Instead, I got a barrage of responses about Maryolatry, Christ’s unrepeatable sacrificial death, the inefficacy of works, the absence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priesthood of all believers, the evils of tradition, and on and on it went…

The word priest came up in last Sunday’s reading didn’t it:

Hebrews 10:11-14,(15-18),19-25

11 And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins.
12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,”
13 and since then has been waiting “until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.”
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds,”
17 he also adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh),
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful.
24 And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds,
25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

The problem is akin to the issue with the English word “love”. Generally people have become more nuanced with that word, clarifying if they mean love (agape, αγάπη) or love (eros, ἔρως), etc. We need to do the same IMO with the word priest.

The English word priest derives from the Greek presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος), in fact it is a contraction that can still be spotted from the original word PRESbuTeros. [Just as the English word bishop derives from the Greek episcopos (επίσκοπος) and is also a contraction that can still be spotted from the original word: ePISCOPos.]

The word used in the letter to the Hebrews reading above, in the concept of priesthood of all believers, in the Old Testament for Levites, etc. is NOT presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος). It is a completely different word: hiereus (ἱερεύς). Unfortunately the English word priest does double duty. It is rightly used for the ordained elder in a community, the presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος), as it has from the beginning of Christianity. It has also come to be used for hiereus (ἱερεύς).

Unfortunately, because of this simple dual usage of the English word, theological confusion reigns. Many abandon the Christian tradition going back to the New Testament of leadership by a priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) on some sort of misunderstood assumption that our shared hiereus (ἱερεύς) has overthrown the New Testament and undivided-church tradition of such leadership by a priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος). Unfortunately the prevalence of clericalism in some quarters, where priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is treated as some sort of sacred caste, has in fact made the issue worse, not better.

Because of the misunderstanding between the terms, many think and act as if getting the laity to act more like a priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) is somehow affirming the priesthood of all believers when it does nothing of the sort – it is unfortunately merely clericalising all the baptised rather than affirming and living any real vocation to our shared hiereus (ἱερεύς) with Christ. Getting laity up the front in worship and dressing them priest/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος)-like, advocating for the abolition of priestly/presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος) presiding at the Eucharist, and so forth is not about understanding the hiereus (ἱερεύς) of all Christians whatsoever, it is merely showing an ignorance of the multi-faceted vocations that are offered within the one body of Christ, the church.

No comments from internet trolls please :-)

I provide wonderful resources for those who genuinely want to work harder at understanding the original biblical texts.

Vatican allows Anglican dress-up

Published on November 10, 2009 in liturgy. 11 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

How to really annoy Anglican clergy

You can offer whiskey instead of Gin – some Anglican clergy find that slightly irksome. You can deny the validity of Anglican sacraments – Anglican clergy without a sense of humour can find that irritating. But if you really want to annoy Anglican clergy …  get their titles wrong! Anglican clergy basically all earn the same – so titles are what distinguishes the men from the boys – or whatever the inclusive version of that is.

Right Revenerends, Most Reverends, Very Reverends, Canons, Venerables, Doctors, Archdeacons, Deacons, Rural Deans, Deans, Non-stipendiary acting priest assistants, Locally Licensed Ordained Non-stipendiary Assistant Ministers, Vicars, Vicar-General, Deputy Vicar General, Priests in Charge, Presiding Bishops, Senior Bishops, Archbishops, Deacon Assistants, Ministry Educators, Chaplains, … the list goes on …

Each with their title, abbreviation, appropriate address, order of titles … dress and insignia.

Anglican clergy may not know their Greek Aorist from their Dative, but years of training make certain that one doesn’t confuse The Ven. Canon Dr. with The Very Rev. Mr. Or get the order of those titles wrong! The minute a priest is collated (and never confuse ordination, induction, collation, installation, licensing,…!!), out go all the old letterheads and visiting cards to be replaced by flashier ones with new titles and the latest popular font.

“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” Mark Twain

And don’t you dare put on the wrong clothing! Priests may wear clergy shirts coloured pink or blue or polka-dot, but dare to put on one with even a purplish tinge and you won’t make it through the day without a comment. And dare to wear a pectoral cross – even out of devotion! Or a large bejeweld ring. Recently I saw an official photo of an NZ bishop with no less than three pectoral crosses on :-)

At the recent ordination everyone had their appropriate attire to signal not only their status but where they fit in churchmanship (or whatever the inclusive version of that is). Light blue cassocks and matching preaching scarves for canons, copes for archdeacons or above, biretta or cassock and surplice for churchmanship, mitre and cope, mitre and chasuble, biretta with chasuble, no mitre with rochet and chimere,…  Not a cope above one’s station. Not a blue scarf out of place.

The Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus

In a stroke of genius one line in the Complementary Norms of the newly published Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus demonstrates that one of Benedict’s advisers (or possibly even Benedict himself!) knows the Anglican ethos only too well. You can almost hear echoes of the evening chuckling over the Barenjager or Jagermeister. The Anglican bishops are not recognised as being bishops, they are not even recognised as having been members of a church. Essentially they have been playing dress-up. Often excessively. But

A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office. (Article 11:4)

Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans [anyone spring to mind?], may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate. Anglican clergy who are in irregular marriage situations [anyone spring to mind?] may not be accepted for Holy Orders in the Ordinariate. (Article 6:2)

Such a man can’t function as a priest (which means he can’t be an Ordinary), he may not even be able to receive communion, but… most significantly for Anglicans – Rome in its regulations allows for the possibility that if he previously functioned as a bishop he can continue to wear a purple cassock, a pectoral cross, and a bejewelled ring.

*****

I am kidding.
There was no one wearing a biretta with a chasuble at the ordination.
But there could have been :-)

Comments from people without a sense of humour (sorry, I mean: humor) – thankfully Wordpress has a powerful filter. These comments are immediately automatically deleted and their email addresses are sent to the Inquisition (sorry, I mean the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Because of the Recession – soft pillows will no longer be supplied.

Previous posts:
First post
Second post
Third post

Further help with your Millinerianism

baptism confirmation ordination

Published on November 4, 2009 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Maybe we have our weighting wrong.

Last weekend I was at an ordination. In our grand, full cathedral, with one of the world’s excellent choirs, with grand processions of robed clergy, coped archdeacons, billowing incense, and five splendidly attired bishops, with prostrations and much ceremony, the two hour service ordained four priests. The bishop, visiting from half a planet away, preached a sermon on the vocation to the ordained priesthood. Each new priest receives a sizeable certificate with the bishop’s personal signature and seal. It will probably be hung prominently in their study. After years of study, preparation, and prayer this is one of the most important days in their life …

Previously they would have been confirmed. Probably in their parish church – varying in quality. There might have been a choir doing its best. The church may even have been pretty full. Probably no incense. The bishop may have vested in cope and mitre or merely rochet and chimere. The service might have taken an hour or so. The sermon probably addressed the whole congregation. Kneeling rather than prostration. Each newly confirmed might have received a certificate no larger than an A5. Certainly no episcopal seal. If they were devout then, they may still have it. After weeks of preparation this was a special day…

Previously they were baptised. Sometimes baptised “in order to be confirmed” (some I know are confirmed “in order to be ordained”). Probably in the back of a church – sometimes the parish church, sometimes not. Maybe on a Sunday – that’s the norm now, but in their age-group it could just as easily have been with only the family on a Saturday afternoon. And it might have taken less than a quarter of an hour. The priest probably wore an alb and stole. There may have been no sermon. I hope they were given a certificate. I hope they still have it. After maybe a meeting to discuss this, this was a special moment…

In the Bible and in the early church, everything was the other way around. Baptism marked the great occasion. In the early church the lengthy baptism liturgy was celebrated throughout the Easter night with much drama after lengthy, intense preparation. Confirmation was integral to baptism, and ordination was the early-church equivalent of a little addition to a regular service.

Do you prominently display your baptism certificate?
Do you, year by year, celebrate the anniversary of your baptism (do you even know the date?!) and those in your household?

marriage and ordination

Published on October 24, 2009 in liturgy. 18 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Does the order matter?

In the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church you can only get married before ordination. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can not get married after ordination. If the wife of a married Roman Catholic deacon dies, he cannot marry again. If the wife of an Anglican priest, re-ordained as a Roman Catholic priest, dies – he cannot marry again.

I have been involved in some discussions about this. The contention is that there is no evidence in the Tradition of marriage after ordination. None! There is, according to that position, not a single example of marriage after ordination until the Reformation. I find this an astonishing and fascinating claim. I would be fascinated if any reader could come up with a refutation. Or, of course, references to this being correct.

When I ask – what is the theology around this? What reflection do you have about this? What is the point of this? Why is it any different to be married before or after ordination? I get little more than, “Do they require post hoc justification? Is Sacred Tradition not enough?” Well I cannot quickly think of anything within Sacred Tradition that is not followed by some reflection, interpretation, theology, or explanation. Does anyone have such a reflection in this case – what is the difference between marriage before and marriage after ordination?

For reference I have been pointed to Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West and Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy and am grateful to have been pointed to the Google preview. But (other than the preview section) I do not yet have these two books and would take some time to obtain them and then absorb them. Meanwhile – please share your wisdom.

Please also tell me if there is an ongoing tradition of abstaining from sexual relations 24 hours prior to presiding at the Eucharist. (And one has also mentioned a tradition of abstaining after presiding – but no indication for how long).

And don’t tell me that as in the case of baptism, confirmation, eucharist – marriage and ordination are in that order because they are so alphabetically LOL

End of Anglican Communion?

Published on October 21, 2009 in liturgy. 43 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

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

Liturgy as language (part 3)

Published on July 25, 2009 in liturgy. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

This series “Liturgy as language” is going in a direction that will be relevant to other contexts (trust me – I know what I’m doing). But this particular post continues and completes the previous post in outlining briefly the New Zealand Anglican context that has brought us to this place. If you are not in New Zealand your context may have similarities – but if there are no similarities to the NZ context, and if you have no interest in this kiwi context go for a walk through a park, or telephone a friend, or contemplate for five minutes, and we’ll see you next time…

New Zealand Anglican Liturgy from 1984

The story so far to 1984 and beyond is of an increasing abandonment of the concept and experience of “common prayer.” Common prayer includes knowing what is coming, one can prepare in anticipation for the communal worship beforehand, during the service one can respond and participate at significant moments often “by heart”, worship has stability from week to week, from one congregation time-slot to another time, and there is a sense of sharing in a wider community – from community to community, locally, and even internationally and ecumenically. [Common prayer also spares us from everything being under the control of the pastor or particular worship leader.] All that changed around 1984 in New Zealand Anglicanism.

Since that post I have had people give example after example – including one of our larger communities where the response to even “The Lord be with you” varies from week to week, demanding one keeps one’s eyes on the pew sheet…

Some comments on the previous post highlighted that the loss of common prayer includes a disenfranchising of children who cannot read, of parents supervising children, and of older people. In other words the “target” of the worship is precisely towards the age-group regularly missing in NZ Anglicanism! A further reflection might be that this means that “targeting” this age-group in this particular manner is notably unsuccessful – and that is leaving to one side my opinion that the “target” of worship ought to be God…

A list of some further changes in the last 25 years

The trajectory of liturgical worship sketched in NZ Anglicanism after 1984 continued and accelerated. Some points include:

  • At the 1987/1988 General Synods, the requirement of at least those ordained to pray the Daily Office was removed from our formularies. This resulted in individualising prayer and daily devotion. Clergy of course (one would hope) continued a personal devotional life but more often did so because it enriched their own individual piety – not with a sense that they were “praying the prayer of the church.” Even those who continue praying the Daily Office now often (mostly?) do this as a way of individual piety rather than as the prayer of the church (which it now struggles to be so understood). Furthermore, a variety of different forms of daily devotions is now provided – so that there is no assurance that those committed to the Daily Office are in any sense “on the same page.”
  • Total Ministry/ Locally shared ministry/mutual ministry increasingly developed, both in rural and urban areas. This way of locally calling to ordination (and other ministries) may include having positive encouragement of the ministry of all the baptised, but in practice it also resulted in poor liturgical formation, training, and study by those being ordained. In some places the link between presiding, pastoring, and preaching was broken.
  • Having a lay person lead the “first part of the service” with the priest absolving and leading the Eucharistic Prayer often ended up re-cluttering the Gathering Rite (so that the lay leader would have something to do), increasing a magical understanding of priesthood, and breaking the sense that the Eucharist and any service is a single, unified rite with a dynamic sense of movement. [There are other issues with this: the quality of formation of such lay leadership and concomitantly its effect on the quality of worship, the clericalisation of lay ministry, the loss of the sense of the full participation of those in the pews, and the focusing of lay ministry into the sanctuary rather than into the world...]
  • The Education for Liturgy Kit (E.L. Kit), the only provincial liturgical formation resource (an undated 200 page ring-bound prepared by the Provincial Board of Christian Education) is now pretty well unknown and difficult to obtain. There appears nowhere one can obtain it. There are no references to it I can find online. New clergy, and those coming from overseas regularly have not even heard of it.
  • One of the best endowed seminaries in the Anglican Communion, the provincial St John’s College, handed over most of its academic training to Auckland University which has little energy for what it termed “parson’s papers” such as liturgy. The NZ Anglican Church keeps no statistics of the proportions of those training now at this national theological college, but I would be interested if any reader had any idea about this. I am guessing not more than a fifth of those training for ordination are training at St John’s, and even some of them are not there for a full course, but are there only for a year or so.
  • Curacy, traditionally four years formation under two different training vicars, often became not viable financially so that some of those recently ordained were immediately placed in charge of a parish with variable ongoing training and formation.
  • This province, small in worship numbers and stretched by vast distances, has increasingly put its energy into areas other than liturgy and not placed quality of worship as a primary strategy of its common life.
  • The 1996/1998 General Synods altered the Form for Ordering the Eucharist formulary so that it is now authorised for Sunday Eucharists also. Previously this highly flexible rite was explicitly for special occasions other than the Sunday Eucharist (as it is in TEC). From this time all that is required now, even for the Sunday Eucharist, is three paragraphs in a Eucharistic Prayer – all else may be sourced elsewhere or created locally. Prior to 1998 responses varied but there was a limit to the variation. That limiting ceased in 1998.
  • In 2002 General Synod passed the Worship Template which accepts any service that has the following structure: Gathering – Story – Going out; ie. a beginning, a middle, and an end.
  • 2006 General Synod authorised the Alternative Form for Ordering the Eucharist as a formulary of our church. Even the highly flexible Form for Ordering the Eucharist clearly was not seen to be sufficiently flexible. Now all that is required is that the Eucharistic Prayer be authorised somewhere in the Anglican Communion.
  • The latest meeting of General Synod (2008) authorised another raft of Eucharistic Prayers. These are mostly not new ones, but reworking of other current Eucharistic Prayers in NZPB so that those who have one of those “by heart” find themselves stumbling over these revisions and in the congregation blurting out responses that are no longer there.

A church prior to 1984 held together by the shared discipline of common worship is now held together by everyone knowing everyone (extended whanau/family style). Understandably some are clamouring now for other forms of holding our unity.

For the New Zealand Anglican church the sense that liturgy is the work of the (whole) church wherever we are, from rural church, to school chapel, to cathedral, to hospital bedside – we are all praying the same, participating in the one worship, has been mostly lost.

sacraments 101 (Or O Level)

Published on June 6, 2009 in liturgy. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Fr Alberto Cutié

Fr Alberto Cutié

In the midst of the media frenzy over “Oprah-famous”, telegenic Father Alberto Cutié moving from the Roman Catholic Church to The (Anglican) Episcopal Church (TEC), there has been an interesting sub-story in the confusion of long-time (20 years?) Religion Correspondent of The Times Ruth Gledhill. In essence Ruth very surprisingly does not seem to understand the traditional sacramental teaching of Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and others that ordination, like baptism cannot be “undone”.

Initially Ruth wrote a startling paragraph which she later deleted:

If Father Cutié is not eventually dismissed from his orders, but even if he is, and then goes on to become an Episcopal priest, will he need to be ordained again? And whether re-ordained or not, will the Catholic Church then view his orders as ‘absolutely null and utterly void’ or not? If not, could this apparent tool of ecumenical discord have the potential to bring about eventual healing between our two churches, beginning a line of succession that the Holy See could recognise as Apostolic? Forgive me please for the betrayal of ignorance in these questions, but if any readers have the answers, I would be most interested to know.

This paragraph appears not to understand the Vatican cannot undo his orders, Anglicans accept Roman Catholic orders and do not “re-ordain” them, and a priest cannot start a “line of succession” – only bishops can.

After some coffee Ruth must have realised some of her confusion, but she replaces the paragraph with one that is still startlingly befuddled:

I’ve deleted an earlier paragraph and am substituting this. To paraphrase Socrates it is a wise woman who knows she knows nothing, but I perhaps did not phrase my original question very well in my haste to finish the blog and get back to the poolside. ‘Speaking in thongs,’ as one wit has observed. I know of course that in the normal course of events, Catholic priests going the Anglican way do not need re-ordination and that Anglicans recognise Catholic orders and that once a priest in the Catholic Church, always a priest. What I was trying to ask, perhaps rather incompetently, was, in the event that no proper procedures, not even notification to the bishop, have been followed and Rome exacts revenge by deprivation of orders or whatever the ultimate penalty is what then? Anglicans probably would think it made no difference but what would the correct position be? That was what I was hoping to discover from readers.

Ruth continues to think that the Vatican can “exact revenge” and deprive someone of their orders. Let’s just put traditional sacramental theology on this issue as simply as one can: no one, not even the Vatican, can unbaptise someone, unconsecrate the Eucharist, or un-ordain a validly ordained deacon, priest, or bishop.

Plenty of Roman Catholic priests have joined the Anglican church. To ordain them again would be a sacrilege as it would be denying God’s action in what are clearly valid sacraments. All that the Anglican diocesan bishop does is check the documentation of ordination and can then decide, if appropriate, to give him a position by licensing him to the priestly role in the diocese.

Further internet discussion on Father Alberto Cutié has strayed into discussions on the 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, which pronounced Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”. These discussions appear unaware that since then Roman Catholics have also reformed ordination rites making them highly similar to Anglican ones. Furthermore, as well as Roman Catholic lines of succession within Anglicanism, 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”.

Finally, there has been outrage by some against TEC for accepting Father Alberto Cutié’s request to join them – to the point of seeing it as further proof that TEC is not part of the Christian religion. There are plenty of websites where people can add their diatribes about TEC or the invalidity of certain orders. Comments below are about the sacramental theology addressed in this post and follow this site’s comments policy.

“Anglican” personal prelature?

Published on February 12, 2009 in liturgy. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , , .

There has been much internet speculation that the Vatican will establish an Anglican personal prelature for unhappy Anglicans. Opus Dei is currently the only personal prelature. Unlike most church governance, which oversees a geographic territory, a personal prelature has a prelate, appointed by the pope, who oversees those linked by a particular agreement rather than living in a particular location.

Within the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church there is a pastoral provision since 1980 of the option of incorporating certain Anglican liturgical traditions within the Roman Rite. This is set out in the Book of Divine Worship. About seventy priests from The Episcopal Church have had their orders regularised and can now function as Roman Catholic priests. Seven parishes follow the Book of Divine Worship.

Internet speculation and newspaper Chinese whispers has the Traditional Anglican Communion, a body claiming about 400,000 faithful, on the threshold of being accepted as a Roman Catholic personal prelature. Ruth Gledhill, the influential Times Religion Correspondent, has repeatedly promoted this rumour (another example). The Traditional Anglican Communion parted company with the Anglican Communion over the ordination of women, liturgical revisions, and homosexuality.

Archbishop John Hepworth

Archbishop John Hepworth

Let’s put this rumour out of its misery once and for all. The Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, John Hepworth, was a Roman Catholic priest who left his celibacy vows and the Roman Catholic Church, joined the Anglican Church of Australia and got married, then divorced, then married again, also leaving his commitment to the Anglican Church of Australia. And the Vatican is on the threshold of accepting this Traditional Anglican Communion as a personal prelature! Yeah right! Furthermore, the Vatican officially still holds to Anglican orders being invalid. And not one of the – is it 27? – different rites of the Roman Catholic Church has married bishops. Nor do Eastern Orthodox.

As a footnote: Isn’t it fascinating that those who hold to biblical literalism on the few, disputed texts about homosexuality, and/or women in leadership (”them“) – appear to be so selective in their stance when it comes to divorce (which so quickly is about “us”), with Jesus having said nothing about the former, and being quite clear about the latter. I have seen little (no?) disquiet about Anglican/Episcopalian twice or thrice married bishops. Just one example: Bishop Walter C. Righter was put on a heresy trial not for being married thrice, but for ordaining a gay man in Newark. [Ps. The charges were dismissed 7-1]

Update February 13: Those readers who take seriously the prophetic powers of Herbert W. Armstrong of The Plain Truth and his ascertaining that these are the end-times will be interested to note the eagerness with which their website reports these Chinese whispers:

The Trumpet has followed this subject closely because of its prophetic significance. For half a century, Herbert W. Armstrong and his Plain Truth magazine expounded on biblical prophecies foretelling the unification of Protestants with their Roman Catholic mother church. The October 1961 Plain Truth, for example, said this: “The pope will step in as the supreme unifying authority—the only one that can finally unite the differing nations of Europe. … Europe will go Roman Catholic! Protestantism will be absorbed into the ‘mother’ church—and totally abolished.” This prophecy is in process of being fulfilled right now. The Vatican may announce its decision to absorb the Traditional Anglican Communion around April this year. (Source here)

Furthermore, one might be helped to ascertain the significance of a “communion” that claims “400,000″ faithful by their international URL: http://acahomeorg0.web701.discountasp.net/tac/tac_index.aspx

Ordinations

Published on December 5, 2008 in liturgy and spirituality. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Those ordained with the bishop

Pictured (left to right) Rev. Andrew McDonald, Rev. Lynnette Lightfoot (both ordained deacons), Bishop Victoria Matthews, and Rev Anne Price (ordained Priest) following the diocesan ordination service held in ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch, New Zealand on Saturday 29th November 2008.

cruciform prostrations

The recent diocesan ordination service was enriched by stronger symbolism this year: the bishop presiding from the cathedra, cruciform prostration by the ordinands, vesting the new deacons in dalmatics, anointing the new priest’s hands with oil, censing the gifts,…

presenting the newly ordained

We are all too aware that medieval accretions cluttered and confused primary, powerful symbolism. But the stripping back to bare essentials has often resulted in the loss of the power of the symbolic altogether. And the aggrandising of words at the expense of action, gesture, and symbol. This is seeking from words a task for which they are not fit. With the rediscovery and renewal of the central symbol, it is good to see that symbolic life being enriched in a natural way, with the stresses in the right places. There is no fear that the wood will be lost for the trees.

censing the gifts

Click on the following album to see more photos:

Ordinations 29 Nov 2008

Roman Catholics accept Archbishop of Canterbury’s orders?

Published on October 6, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: , , , , , , .


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?

Catholic bishop accepts validity of Anglican orders?

Published on September 4, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: , , , , .

NZ Catholic, the fortnightly New Zealand national Catholic newspaper, has a positive front-page article about the installation of a female bishop Victoria Matthews in Christchurch, New Zealand. Although unable to attend the installation because of a prior commitment, the Roman Catholic bishop of Christchurch, Bishop Barry Jones, says he would have had no issue attending, extended his greetings and will be present at the diocesan synod eucharist this evening. The article continues:

Almost 20 years ago, then Dunedin Bishop Len Boyle had an even trickier situation to manage in terms of Anglican episcopacy. Penny Jamieson had been selected to head the Anglican diocese of Dunedin, but Bishop Boyle turned down an invitation to her ordination in 1989.
“My rationale was that I couldn’t go because I didn’t think she was being made a bishop,” Bishop Boyle, now retired, told NZ Catholic.

Does this mean if a male had been ordained bishop by the Anglicans back in 1989 Bishop Boyle would have gone to the ordination? And would have thought that the Anglican male “was being made a bishop”?