Ship of Fools: Ordination rite

Thread: Ordination rite Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024903

Posted by RCD (# 11440) on :

I happened to wander back onto the website of St. Clement's Philadelphia and noticed an order of service for a recent ordination of their new curate.

While looking through the service, I saw the expected additions from the old Roman books - expanded litany, hand anointing and delivery of chalice and paten with their prayers.

However, I noticed that they used the "Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office, etc." formula as the Prayer of Ordination and I was curious as whether there was some particular rationale for selecting this over the the Prayer of Ordination found in the 1979 BCP. It seemed to me that the latter would fit much better, both from a liturgical perspective, and from a copy-the-Romans perspective (since the old Roman form was a prayer).

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

IMO both ordination prayers have their respective, arguable pluses. I like the fact that the traddie Anglican ordination prayer mentions an actual competency of an ordained priest -- to pronounce the forgiveness of sins in the stead of Christ. However, I also recognise that the '79 formula recognises that it is the Holy Spirit who confers the consecration of priesthood, administered in our tradition through the laying-on of episcopal hands in an historic succession. On balance I don' think one is intrinsically preferable over the other. If you are at all familiar with Saint Clement's, what else would you have expected us to do?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I agree that the rites of ordination both have their merits. The BCP 1979 ordinal has the added advantage of the heading 'The Consecration of the Priest' with its overtones of setting aside and lifelong commitment.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Indeed, but then of course some places still don't have the "new prayerbook" in their pew racks.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

1550 & 1662 both have prayer that the order in question be conferred, but it's in the litany earlier in the liturgy.

Unfortunately, this is almost always delegated to a cantor other than the ordaining bishop! Oops!

Fortunately, the soundest BCP ordination rites are for bishops (there's an apostolic prayer just before the laying-on-of-hands). So, as you only need to be baptised to be validly ordained bishop (by a proper bishop) then at least we've always had bishops if nothing else in the CofE till 1980!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Hang on, whatever has a parish got to do with the ordination rite? Typically the minsters are ordained at the cathedral and sent to the parish. After all, it's an episcopal church. Ordaining in the parish sounds highly congregational. (The first ordination I ever attended was of a minister in the United Reformed Church, in the church which had called him.)

There's presumably some pond difference here and I apologized in advance to all TEC churches that I've misunderstood their practice.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Many ordinations in England take place in a parish church. Mine was. They are still diocesan occasions. What has the location got to do with it? (Anyway, some TEC dioceses don't have cathedrals).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I got the impression from the OP that St Clement's was in some way responsible for the ordination rite.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

This situation is special because S. Clements is a niche church who sought out someone for a specific Anglo-Catholic intent. The service leaflet noted that the ordaining bishop was doing so on behalf of Bishop Lee of Chicago, from where the curate came.

I have little doubt Bishop Lee would have been there, if it were feasible, and would have worn all the vestments lain upon him.

As for the locale, if I had my choice between S. Clements and Philadelphia cathedral, I know which one I would pick. I also wonder if the difficulty of serving a Missal Pontifical High Mass at the cathedral were a factor.

[ 04. September 2012, 21:03: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RCD:
While looking through the service, I saw the expected additions from the old Roman books - expanded litany, hand anointing and delivery of chalice and paten with their prayers.

These elements are still in the current Roman books, as well.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

In TEC I'd say it's more typical to ordain classes of new deacons at the cathedral or at a major parish church that may function as an unofficial pro-cathedral. Priests are often ordained in parish churches where the are serving IME.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Which is a common policy in many English dioceses too.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
This situation is special because S. Clements is a niche church who sought out someone for a specific Anglo-Catholic intent. The service leaflet noted that the ordaining bishop was doing so on behalf of Bishop Lee of Chicago, from where the curate came.

I have little doubt Bishop Lee would have been there, if it were feasible, and would have worn all the vestments lain upon him.

As for the locale, if I had my choice between S. Clements and Philadelphia cathedral, I know which one I would pick. I also wonder if the difficulty of serving a Missal Pontifical High Mass at the cathedral were a factor.

Much truth here. S. Clements is a niche church within TEC, even amongst A/C shacks. Had Bishop Lee been there, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have happily worn all the vestments laid upon him. He's a man of great liturgical breadth and depth and yet he still carries Nashotah House within him.

Also, while we have a very fine cathedral here in the Diocese of Chicago, I find that it's the diaconal ordinations that take place at the cathedral with entire "graduating classes," while ordinations to the priesthood tend to be scheduled more individually, generally at the parish church. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's becoming more common across the board.

[ 05. September 2012, 01:30: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I got the impression from the OP that St Clement's was in some way responsible for the ordination rite.

Yes, as usual they concocted a liturgical
omlette of their own devising with dubious, on the spot approval. That's the way the Anglo-Papalists and extreme Evangelicals do it in England.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The liturgy used at St Clement's for the recent ordination was pretty much identical to what I witnessed in an advanced Anglo-Catholic parish in the Diocese of Fort Worth more than 30 years ago, featuring the typical A-C ceremonies of presentation of the instruments with words on the order of, "Take power to offer sacrifice and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead", anointing and binding of the hands, and the rest of it. It's pretty much the standard Anglo-Catholic procedure for ordinations: BCP rite with Western Catholic accretions. The only thing I'd consider particularly noteworthy is that the traditional pre-1979 BCP ordination words were used in conjunction with the episcopal laying on of hands, rather than the 1979 ordination prayer. The 1979 BCP, however, provides for all the other catholic ceremonial such as vesting in the chasuble, presentation of the instruments and so forth, without getting too specific in the rubrics as to exactly how those things are to be done or what their exact content should be.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Generally, Anglo-catholic bishops in the USA add the vesting and presentation of instruments to the ordination rite - usually between the laying on of hands and the presentation of the Bible if they are using the 1789/1928 Ordinal. That said, I can think of at least one occasion when a very Anglo-catholic bishop deferred to the preference of the parish and did not do the vesting and instruments thing.

I find that increasingly deacons are done at the cathedral, pro-cathedral, or biggest-convenient-shack-in-the-diocese, whilst priestings tend to be in the parish were the candidates have been assigned. It has been going that way for about twenty-five years.

PD

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And I'd thought that the reason the Bishop of London ordained deacons at St Paul's and his suffragans ordained priests in some large church in their area, was for Richard Chartres to avoid being seen to ordain women as priests. (I was only observing from the outside.)

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I got the impression from the OP that St Clement's was in some way responsible for the ordination rite.
Yes, as usual they concocted a liturgical
omlette of their own devising with dubious, on the spot approval. That's the way the Anglo-Papalists and extreme Evangelicals do it in England.

*

Mr. Rob - you've been here for quite long enough to know that there is no need for sniping and eye-rolling at evangelicals, Anglo-papalists or the English in order to make a point.

Thank you.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by mettabhavana (# 16217) on :

quote:
for Richard Chartres to avoid being seen to ordain women as priests

Does he do women in secret?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The service leaflet noted that the ordaining bishop was doing so on behalf of Bishop Lee of Chicago, from where the curate came.

Huh? Why isn't he being ordained on behalf of the Bishop of Pennsylvania, whose priest he is? (Isn't he?)

Thurible

[ 05. September 2012, 13:13: Message edited by: Thurible ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

And, having just scanned through the order of service, if I had to sit through the choir singing a seven verse hymn which is perfectly singable by a congregation, I'd be furious!

Thurible

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The service leaflet noted that the ordaining bishop was doing so on behalf of Bishop Lee of Chicago, from where the curate came.
Huh? Why isn't he being ordained on behalf of the Bishop of Pennsylvania, whose priest he is? (Isn't he?)

Thurible

The canonical situation in America is more complicated than in the CofE. The ordinand still belong(ed/s)to the Bishop of Chicago. He was, BTW, deaconed in Chicago (at the cathedral there, together with several other new deacons).

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Oh. So, how does that work? Does he continue +Chicago's forever? When licenced as St Clement's curate, to whom did he make his oaths?

Thurible

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

You can google the Canons of the Episcopal Church and download the pdf file covering matters of ministry, then read the sections covering canonical residence and licensure of deacons and priests. I would provide a link, but my attempt to just link the relevant section failed. While licensure by the Ordinary of a diocese in which an ordained minister wishes to officiate is required for the ongoing public ministry of any deacon or priest, as I read the canons, the issue of canonical residency is most relevant to priests who have the cure of a parish: they must be canonically resident in the diocese in which they are exercising charge of a parish. As elsewhere, a change of canonical residency is done by the process of letters dimissory.

If you google the topic, you will find a file from the 2012 General Convention of TEC, proposing a resolution to study expansion of canonical residency to cover clergy other than those who have the cure of a parish, such as assistant and associate parochial clergy, chaplains, those in non-parochial ministry and so forth.

This digression seems rather more Purgatorial than Ecclesiantical, so I'm not sure that we should pursue it here.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Thanks. Yes, I'll have a nose: I'd not realised that was the case.

Thurible

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

In the American context there are a lot of odd little arrangements that occur either as courtesies between bishops or towards clergy/parishes, and I think the ordination of the new assistant curate at St Clements falls into that category.

In a similar vein, a few weeks ago I took a confirmation for the Bishop of a neighbouring diocese due to scheduling problems. I happened to be visiting a parish on the extreme western edge of my diocese, and the confirmation was on the extreme eastern edge of his, so I was granted letters dimissory to pop over the boundary and take care of that for him. The same sort of thing occasionally occurs with ordinations, but more often than not, the situation there is that the priest was ordained in your diocese and is moving to another but either wishes to be ordained by his orginal bishop, or the paperwork won't go through in time for him to be ordained in the receiving Diocese. Also if the parish that is receiving him as a priest assistant wants the ordination in their parish that can result in the Bishop of X ordaining in the diocese of Y. It is one of those things that is not quite what the Canons envision, but nonetheless happens for pastoral reasons.

Also the TEC understanding of Canonical Residence is closer to that of the Roman Catholic Church than that of the Church of England. Although I am not in TEC, our Canons are almost the same, so I have become quite familiar with the process. For example, a postulant for Holy Orders is accepted by the Diocese of Iowa and is sponsored by them for seminary. He/she remains a member of that diocese whilst at Seminary, and is ordained by the Bishop of that diocese. However, if there is no available curacy and he/she has to serve her time in say the Diocese of Chicago, he/she will be granted letters dimissory to the diocese, but probably not until after they have been ordained deacon. Alternatively, he or she could be ordained on letter dimissory to +Chicago by +Iowa in view of the fact the cleric involved is going to be serving in the Chicago Diocese. The basic idea is that we do not loose anyone in the system! This apparently was a bit of a problem in the early days of what has become TEC.

We already have a requirement in our diocesan Canons that clergy not in parochial ministry maintain Canonical residence either in the diocese of their ordination, or where they last served, or where they are now resident. I think all bishops have one or two clergy (or 15 or 20) who are Canonically Resident elsewhere but occasionally officiate in the diocese where they actually live.

PD

[ 05. September 2012, 15:01: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
...so I was granted letters dimissory to pop over the boundary and take care of that for him....

I thought you were the archbishop? Doesn't that trump diocese lines?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
...so I was granted letters dimissory to pop over the boundary and take care of that for him....
I thought you were the archbishop? Doesn't that trump diocese lines?

Nope, I have to have letters dimissory. An Archbishop has only very limited rights of interference in another diocese unless it is vacant. I can preach and say mass in another diocese without permission from the local Ordinary, though politeness would suggest I notify him that I am "invading" his diocese. Other than that I can make a formal "hostile" visitation of a diocese if I have evidence of significant irregularities, but that is kind of a nuclear option. I am also expected to conduct regular 'friendly' visitations, which these days, in this jusdiction, takes the form of an annual parish survey. I also have the job of making sure that bishops retire at 72!

To ordain or confirm in another diocese I need Letters Dimmissory unless it is vacant. Otherwise my function is pretty much that of being the ex-officio chairman of almost all provincial boards and committees. I think I can chair a joint session of both houses, but only in certain circumstances. I would have to check precisely when in the Convention handbook.

PD

[ 05. September 2012, 21:58: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I should perhaps say that in theory jurisdiction originates with the archbishop, but when a bishop is in possession of a diocese within my province I cede jurisdiction to him until such time as he dies, retires, resigns, is translated, or is under discipline. In the meantime I pretty much need permission from the sitting bishop to take Episcopal functions in a diocese.

PD

[ 05. September 2012, 22:03: Message edited by: PD ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0