Anglican Orders

It would seem the Anglican church is going with the two track system proposed by Archbishop Rowan Williams, which I mentioned below. In an interesting article, it would seem that a cathedral is offering separate male and female blessed communion.

n Anglican cathedral is trying to accommodate those of its faithful who do not accept female clergy by allowing parishioners to decide whether to accept communion bread blessed by its female canon or by a male priest. Blackburn Cathedral in Lancashire recently installed Rev. Sue Penfold as a residential canon. Cathedral canon Andrew Hindley explained the decision to This Is Lancashire, saying it was agreed by all the clergy that it was the best way to handle what they called a “mixed economy.”

The congregation can choose whether to receive communion bread blessed by Rev. Penfold or bread blessed by a male priest at the main cathedral service on Sundays at 10:30 a.m.

“This situation is not ideal, but we are trying to be inclusive,”[The buzzword of the age.] Canon Hindley said, adding that Rev. Penfold had been appointed to Blackburn Cathedral to reflect the “board views” of the Church of England.

The communion practice was announced to worshipers when it was introduced last year but it is reportedly implemented in a “very discreet manner.”

The practice was attacked by Sally Barnes of the Anglican feminist group Women and the Church. She said it was “unacceptable and disgraceful” to turn communion into “a buffet.” [Interestingly, the Truth is also treated in a buffet style as well, take what you please] She claimed the practice labeled women as “tainted” and that many people in the area have complained about it.

The traditional-leaning Anglican group Forward in Faith, which opposes women bishops, said the practice was unusual. According to This Is Lancashire, group spokesman Stephen Parkinson called it “bonkers” and said he did not understand why the women priests put up with it.

It is a bad sign when both the traditional-leaning and the, say, "progressive" leaning groups both oppose your practice.

The Anglican church's teachings are nebulous at best, when it comes to the nature of communion and the eucharist; the sense of any sort of real presence is left up to the individual to discern. By having a practice such as this, it acknowledges that there is some sort of problem.

I see parallels with the situation in the Catholic Church and the SSPX. One of the serious issues that needs to be hammered out relates to the validity of the Novus Ordo of the Mass. The Church clearly posits the validity of the Mass and the other sacraments under all rites the Church sanctions, but there still are some who, for various reasons, question or flatly deny the validity of these rites. I liken this Anglican situation to keeping separate tabernacles/ciboria for the Sacred Body consecrated at the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, because some people may deny the validity of the new Mass. If the Anglican church teaches that women can be validly ordained, and validly preform their religious services, then it leads them into error by maintaining some separation of the blessed bread.

Of course, since the Anglican Church lacks valid orders (at least for the most part) and lacks valid sacraments, this discussion is purely academic. It is a sign of the times for their church, however, as they slowly lose any sense of identity they may have had. No longer will a set of beliefs or practices define what it means to be an Anglican, now all that is left is a sense of history or (small t) tradition.

On Ordination

This post, and indeed this Weblog assumes that the Church is serious when she says "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women." (OS 4) And further, we believe the CDF response to this document when it says "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." (Responsum ad Dubium) Therefore, we assume women can not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, that this has been infallibly declared, and that it is to be held definitively by the faithful.

Now, we consider the case of the validity of Anglican Orders. As you may know, the Anglicans are a protestant denomination which is not in communion with Rome and the See of Peter. The Anglican church started during the reign of King Henry VIII. The details are unimportant, but as time went on, it happened that the various liturgical texts were changed, including the rites for ordination. In 1896, the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae was issued by Pope Leo XIII, and it stated that Anglican Orders were "absolutely null and utterly void." The primary argument at hand was that the Anglican Rites of Ordination lacked proper form; that the words of ordination had changed in such a way as to no longer reflect the proper nature of the ordained priesthood. This papal bull was reaffirmed in 1998 by the CDF, when given as an example of a papal teaching that the faithful must affirm.

The story actually complicates from there. In 1931 (which is after the 1896 Bull), the Bonn Agreement between the Anglican Church and various schismatic groups established communion between the groups. Bishops, who, though schismatic, still retained valid ordination and apostolic succession, joined in ordinations in the Anglican church. At this point, it has been argued, some semblance of apostolic succession could have been reestablished, perhaps re-validating the ministerial priesthood and the sacraments within the Anglican Church.

Recalling our initial assumption, however, that women cannot be ordained, it has also been argued that the Anglicans, if they ever did reestablish valid succession, no longer retain it universally because the bishops (in general) no longer have a proper understanding of the Priesthood (or Episcopacy), and as such cannot form the proper intention to ordain to the priesthood. Essentially, they do not ordain because their intention is to ordain to a priesthood that doesn't exist. This deficiency may not be universal, we will permit the possibility that individuals or groups who do properly understand the ordained priesthood could retain valid orders.

We take an aside here to state that this is not a well-defined area. It is manifestly unclear if some or all or most or none of the Anglican orders are or were valid at any point in history. Each of the arguments put forward are just that, arguments. They are not declarations (with probably the exception of the Bull of Pius XIII), and as such aren't definitive.

An important question here, really the important question, is considering what constitutes a requisite intention for a valid ordination. We know that for a sacrament to be valid, we must have a valid minister, proper form and matter, and proper intentions of both the minister and the recipient of the sacrament. In the case of holy orders, we need a validly ordained Bishop (minister) and a man who has been baptized and confirmed (recipient). There seem to be required words. Laying on of hands is necessary. Finally, the Bishop must intend to confer the ministry of Christ's priesthood and the recipient must intend and be free to receive it.

So again, we must ask what is requisite in this intention. It has been pointed out to me that there is little if any belief required in Baptism. In fact, the catechism states "The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop." (CCC 1253) And, "...anyone, even a nonbaptized person, with the required intention, can baptize. The intention required is to will to do what the church does when she baptizes." That said, there is no such statement I can find regarding Orders. Likewise, I was also reminded that an otherwise validly ordained priest who no longer believes in the Real Presence can validly consecrate. On the other hand, someone who does not believe in the real presence cannot receive the sacramental graces from the Eucharist without belief. The code of canon law requires that Bishops gather documentation of "the sound doctrine of the candidate" among other things (cf. CIC 1051).

This still doesn't answer our question. What is the (minimum necessary) required intention of the ordaining minister and the ordination candidate to remain valid? Let me be clear, my worry is that in this day and age when there are seminarians (at some of the less orthodox seminaries), priests, and sadly even Bishops (recall this post), who do not understand, or believe in the ministerial priesthood in the way that the Church does, there could be problems with regards to intention in receiving or giving orders. If it it possible (as I stated, it is not certain) that the Anglicans could have been deficient in their intention to ordain, in part, by believing that Women can be admitted into the Priesthood and Episcopate, then we must logically admit the possibility (again not certainty) that the same deficiency could exist in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps the answer to our question is "to confer (or receive) the ordination to the Church's priesthood" regardless of personal misunderstandings. If this were the case it would perhaps be harder to invalidate a priori the Anglican Orders as well, or at least those conferred on males. This is the reason we require so much of our bishops and seminarians. We don't want to be at the point where we question absolute minimums to be ordained.

Above all else, though, we can pray. Pray for our bishops, for all the seminarians, and those who educate them. Pray that the Spirit may help lead them along a path to holiness, and indeed obedience and orthodoxy. Perhaps all of these problems could be settled if more would pray for them. After all, the priesthood is the cornerstone of the sacramental life of the Church, and is a favorite target of the devil.

Ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.

More Gay Anglicans?

In a news story from Catholic Online, it turns out that the US Episcopal Church has quite a few other partnered gay bishops, the only difference is that Gene Robinson is quite open about it.

NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews.com) - The head of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Bishop Jefferts Schori, shocked listeners of a BBC Interview when she announced that Gene Robinson - the controversial Episcopalian bishop who was consecrated bishop despite his being an openly practicing homosexual - is not the only homosexual and partnered bishop in the Anglican Church.

"[Robinson] is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop," Schori said in response to a question from her interviewer. "He is certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop. He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."

The interviewer then asked Schori whether she meant that Robinson was not the only gay, partnered bishop in the Episcopalian Church. She responded, "Within our own church and within the Anglican Communion as a whole."

I can bet she's not referring to those other bishops who voted to break away from the US Episcopal Church. Or maybe she is. After all, I know my younger siblings like to call things they don't like as "gay", so maybe she meant that a lot of those other bishops are gay in that sense.

This, of course, comes on the heels of the upcoming conference of the worldwide Anglicans. What this says is that the US Church basically wants to openly flaunt traditional morality, which the Communion wants to uphold. "See, our bishops are practicing gays, so it must be okay, right?"

A number of the bishops who have called the so-called Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFC) have in the past suggested that the American Episcopalian Church should not be invited to the Lambeth conference, due to its decision to consecrate Robinson bishop, and a general movement on the part of the Episcopalian Church to accept and bless homosexual behavior.

Schori said that this idea felt to her "much like declining an invitation to a dinner party because somebody I don't like might be there. My understanding of the planned program for the Lambeth Conference is one that has the possibility of letting people build relationships. I think that's a remarkable gift. I think it would be very sad to go there and simply spend all our time consumed by legislation and I don't think that's what's planned."

I guess you have to expect this when your spokesbishop is of the fairer gender. (This is where I get myself in trouble) The bishops are meeting to hold together the disintegrating Anglican Communion, and she wants to build relationships. Maybe if those bishops spent less time "building relationships" and more time protecting the fidelity of their faith, we wouldn't be in this state at all.

When pressed by the BBC interviewer as to whether or not Schori supported those bishops and priests who were blessing homosexual couples despite pressure from Canterbury to cease all such ceremonies, Schori side-stepped the question, answering, "That's not a matter for me to say yea or nay, it's a matter of pastoral practice in individual congregations, in the same way that I don't enter into decisions about whether or not it's appropriate to bless a fleet of battleships going off to war."

Schori also seemed to suggest that support for homosexual behavior was consonant with the traditional position, the "roots" of the Anglican Church, saying, "My hope is that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole might remember our roots, our traditional valuing of diversity and our traditional sense that worshiping together despite differing views is what holds us together."

Is this as laughable to you as it is to me? Isn't she the equivalent of the Bishop-Primate. Doesn't that make it a matter of her to say yea or nay? Isn't the point of the communion the fact that the Faith is not up to the individual congregations? Maybe I missed the point of even having bishop(ess)es.

Also, where in the "roots" of the Anglican Church were there diversity and gay marriage? Time for a history lesson. The Anglican Church started in England when the King wanted an annulment, and didn't get one from Rome. They were made up of Englanders, and kept out Catholics. In fact, they persecuted them. There was no "worshiping together despite differing views." You never heard an Anglican say "I don't care that you think the Pope has primacy, let's break bread together."

Maybe this is just another sign that the Anglicans are going to implode. The traditional ones no longer have much reason to be anything but Catholic, and we'll take them. Traditional Christianity is just what the Church in America needs. The goofy ones can stay whatever they are.

UPDATE: Burke and the "Priestesses"

As I reported earlier, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis was set to excommunicate some women if they went through a faux ordination ceremony over the weekend.

St. Louis, Nov 13, 2007 / 10:36 am (CNA).- Two women who took part in a ritual they claimed was an ordination ceremony have been placed under interdict, the Associated Press reports.

Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, 67, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, underwent the ceremony at a St. Louis synagogue. The ceremony was led by a South African former nun who claimed to have been ordained a bishop by a German bishop in communion with Rome. The two women plan to "co-pastor" a community, starting December 1, in a space offered by a local Unitarian church.

Mmmm, interdict. There's a word I haven't heard in a while. This is why I like Burke, he will use to full Canonical Vocabulary when chastising these wackos.

Read that last line, though. They are going to co-pastor a community in a Unitarian Church. In a sense, I'm glad they had to resort to using a space occupied by a "you're good, I'm good, everyone's good" crowd.

Archbishop Raymond Burke of the archdiocese of St. Louis sent a three-page letter to the women after they underwent the ceremony. He ordered the women to "renounce any attempts" to celebrate Mass, hear confessions, or officiate at any other sacrament. The letter summoned them to appear before a church tribunal on December 3.

In the archdiocesan newspaper on Friday the archbishop wrote that the women would confuse and lead astray the faithful by their "sinful action."

Ms. McGrath claimed the two women are helping to "bring about badly needed reforms," to heal the church's "dysfunction."

Reverend Arthur Espelage, executive coordinator for the Canon Law Society of America, said the actions of Archbishop Burke are "extremely formal" measures.
He said each rite the women preside over creates a deeper separation from the church.
"He knows the law very well," he said, speaking of the archbishop. "He's a very conservative archbishop, he's going to take a severe stand here. But even if you had a very liberal bishop, you'd have the same response.
"Civil disobedience doesn't change laws in the church."

Think they will show up to their tribunal? Again, an awesome Canon Law word. I really hope that the example can be made, and they don't lead too many people astray. I'm sure Burke has a plan of action in place.

Womenpriests and Abp. Burke

Sometimes you encounter an article that you just can't pass up.

St. Louis, Nov. 8, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has warned two local women that they face excommunication if they go through with plans for a Sunday ceremony at which they will claim to be ordained as priests.

The archbishop sent personal letters by courier to Rose Marie Dunn Hudson and Elsie Hainz McGrath, reminding them that they would incur the "censure of excommunication" if they participated in the ceremony, which is being held at a Jewish synagogue under the auspices of the "Womenpriests" organization.

I'm glad we're still excommunicating women who try to be ordained. After the first round of excommunications, we just started letting them be, which is troublesome, and sends the wrong message to the Church. Bravo, Archbishop Burke.

Archbishop Burke noted that the fraudulent "ordination" ceremony, held in direct violation of Church teaching and authority, would constitute an "act of schism." He warned the women that additional penalties could be used against them, along with the excommunication that would be automatically imposed.

McGrath told an AP reporter that she would ignore the archbishop's warning, which she characterized as a "form of intimidation."

Two interesting points, first of all, what will be these additional penalties. In a sense, I hope they go through with the "ordination" just so I can see what Burke has up his sleeves. Second, how is this intimidation, this is really just a final warning before the canonical excommunication, the "turn back now" sign. The excommunication will happen. I just can't see what part of "and this is to be held by all christian faithful" people don't understand.

Interestingly enough, they couldn't find any Catholic space to have the "ordination" "mass", and so some reform Jews stepped in. Abp. Burke is understandably upset, and he appealed to the Jewish community to change their mind. (From the Curt Jester)

Lesbian Bishopess

As I've noted earlier, the Episcopal Church is setting themselves up for a schism. This time, it's right here in Chicago.

A lesbian Episcopal priest has made the top-five list of bishop-candidates for the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. The list includes three women. No woman has ever been a finalist before.

"I believe that accepting this nomination is what God is asking of me," Rev. Tracey Lind said in a statement. The openly lesbian cleric is dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland and author of Interrupted by God.

Bishop James Stanton of Dallas, a leader in the global effort against gay bishops, called Lind's nomination distressing.

"It's an action that says Chicago really doesn't care what the rest of the Anglican Communion says," he told the Sun-Times.

Yep, that's because the "Anglican Communion" isn't real. All that holds them together is stubbornness and not being Catholic. They started with the King wanting to divorce, and yet expect to maintain some sort of worldwide unity. There is no reason for them to be unified.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has been dealing with the possibility of schism since 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

"My life with my partner, Emily Ingalls [a cradle Episcopalian], is the gift that most sustains me," Lind's statement said. "Together, we tend our garden, travel, hike."

And, as I said before, bishop Robinson is going to get gay married soon. That's not going to help things. This is all just a case of trying to politicize Church in a way it should not be. Bishops should be chosen because they are the best person for the job, or something like that; fidelity to the creeds and administrative savvy, and all that. If you are just choosing a bishop to anger the rest of the world, this is something you should reflect on.

-JG

A (real) bishop for Women's ordination

A real Catholic Bishop in Australia said that the Vatican should look into changing it's practice of ordaining only celibate men. (Article)

Bishop Pat Power, an auxiliary of the Canberra, Australia diocese, has indicated his support for an end to mandatory clerical celibacy, and suggested a new discussion of the possibility of ordaining women.

In a public response to a campaign by Australian Catholic activists to end the celibacy discipline, Bishop Power said that while Vatican leaders are unwilling to reconsider the issue, among "ordinary Catholics" he has found both support and "a sense of urgency" about the need for change.

"Where there is the conviction that the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic belief and practice, there must be questions asked about disciplinary laws in the Church which have the net effect of denying many Catholics regular access to the Eucharist," the Australian bishop wrote. He said that by limiting priestly ministry to celibate men the Church was in effect restricting access to the Eucharist "because of the scarcity of priests."

Bishop Power went on the praise Australian activists for raising the question of ordination for women. The bishop said that he recognized "the sensitivity to the question at the level of the Vatican," but called for "a more open and thorough examination of the issues around the ordination of women and the whole structure of the priesthood."

Does anyone honestly think this makes any sense? As the article goes on the point out, the issue is closed, Pope John Paul II said: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

In reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Papal Infallibility, it is easy to see that this is not a personal decree of the pope, but rather an ex cathedra decree. He clearly intended this to be universal.

In my vote, this is so scandalous, that this Bishop should be forced to recant and/or resign.

-JG

The lay pastor

It is rare for me to cite an article that was blogged about by another, which I read about there. It is even less often (never?) that I would write about someone else's blog post. Indeed, that is what I am doing today. I read about this post first on the Curt Jester. The original blog post found here. Also, forgive my abhorrent English above.

This commentary is great. It is a critique of the office of Parish Life Collaborator (or also Coordinator) (PLC). This is a lay person or a Nun, or an otherwise non-priest assigned to a parish with no priest to oversee parish work, and I suppose pastoral duties. This is a response to the lack of priestly vocations, but, as Fr. Powell points out, is also a hindrance to those vocations.

The biggest problem, he notes, is the fact that in these parishes, there is no visible example of the priesthood to aspire to.

We know young men need male leadership in order to be properly challenged to sacrifice secular enticements. Sister's appointment is one more example of the feminization of the Church and another nail in the coffin of priestly vocations.

This is a move (sideways and under the guise of an "emergent crisis") to undermine presbyteral authority in the parish by emptying the role of pastor of its orders. IOW, this is a move to make it possible to be appointed Pastor (even if not in name) w/o being an ordained priest. Priests will simply become traveling Sacrament Machines. The office of Priest Director will fade as demand for priests grows. Interesting side note: priests now are starting to look a whole like bishops in the Patristic period!

Wow, I've never thought of it that way, so much. Back home there is such a shortage of priests that they are merging parishes, and individual priests are holding down three or four churches. If these observations aren't bad enough, check out these predictions.

a). even with the availability of newly ordained priests, PLC's will continue to "pastor" their parishes with Fr. Newbie hanging around for "mentoring." He will be graduated to a staff position and made a "member of the team."

b). Within five years (but before the Fr. Newbies arrive) PLC's will demand the right to preach at Mass since Fr. Sacramental Minister isn't in residence and doesn't know the parish. How can he possibly preach to us when he doesn't know us?

c). Look for a new book of ceremonies to appear from The Liturgical Press, Liturgies for Pastoral Life Coordinators quite soon. It will be argued that since PLC's play a special role in the life of the parish, the church needs liturgies designed to celebrate their unique ministry. Translation: we need liturgical validation for the invention of the PLC so that the concept of the PLC is more easily tolerated over time. Liturgies bestow legitimacy and normalize innovation.

d). Parishes administered by female PLC's will produce far fewer priestly vocations than parishes run by priest-pastors. This NOT b/c women intentionally deter vocations or somehow jinx boys into believing that the priesthood is bad--how many priests today trace their vocations back to a religious sister? My point is that w/o active, visible, and regular priestly leadership in a parish, a boy or young man cannot "see" the priesthood in action.

Eeek. And yet, I think he's on to something. What he doesn't say, but I will, is that there are likely nefarious forces, waiting in the wings, ready to pounce on this, to change the Church, and remake it in their image. I speak of the "ordain women" (or womyn) types using this as a spring board to try underhandedly to remake the Church (or Chyrch, maybe). That said, many (likely most) of these PLC's will be good people, filling a perceived need at the request of their Bishops. I hope.

We are being asked to normalize the absence of the ordained ministry; or, at the very least, we are being asked to support purely functional solutions to an engineered crisis until we no longer see the absence of a priest as a problem. In other words, we are being slowly accustomed to the Protestantization of the Catholic Church in the U.S.

A process that started more than 40 years ago, when the spirit (poltergeist, really) of Vatican II got out of its box.

One thing I heard on the radio that was relevant to this was about the feminizing of our culture. In the post-war 60's new empowered woman stuff, out came a bunch of support for girls and women seeking careers. What happened, this lady asserted, was that boys were left behind, and forgotten. After all, what boy wants to go out and do real work (studying, etc.) when some girl can do his job. With all these support structures in place for girls going into technical careers and business, boys have been left by the wayside, and not pushed to their full potentials. I think this is related to the lack of vocations. Add in the fact that now women might be able to do the job of pastor, and it just might be a lost cause.

Pray for vocations hard enough and you might just get one.

-JG

I read, recently, an article with a bit of a different take than most on the ordination of women. In most cases, the position is simply: "The Church has never ordained women, Christ didn't ordain women, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis says the Church can't, so there" essentially.

Though these points are also mentioned in this article as well, the main focus is that this denies true femininity, forcing women into a masculine role.

Those who want to ordain women to the priesthood manifest a failure to recognize the dignity of women, said an expert in moral theology and women's issues.

At the conference, de Solenni used St. Thomas' arguments to analyze the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood in light of the natural complementarity between the sexes.
...
"Woman will never be the bridegroom, in any form. The temptation to force upon women a masculine paradigm arises from our confused notions of power and authority which, in turn, devalue her vocation as a bride, clearly illustrated by Mary," de Solenni said.

Ordaining a woman, she said, "would be, in essence, to show complete disregard for the reality she is as a woman, as a bride."
...
"No doubt," continued de Solenni, "women need a voice in the Church, but it must be an authentic voice and not their voice made to sound like a man's."

Women, she stated, have a unique role in the Church and in society and that role should not be forced into masculine paradigms. "To do so," she said, "runs the risk of losing what is truly feminine -- not the femininity of fashion, but the varied femininity of women saints, whose personalities and strengths span just as far as those of men saints … if not more."

I'm sure this article would anger many feminists, and those goofy ordain women groups, but it really is true. Women are not men, and so have a different role in the Church. Why not?