Ship of Fools: MW: St James, Sault Ste Marie

Thread: MW: St James, Sault Ste Marie 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=030453

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

I was intrigued by MW Report 2967. I don't think I've encountered this before:

quote:
As with most parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan, the parish lacks what the diocese calls "professional" or "imported" clergy. As a result, several congregants of St James have undergone training to be ordained within the parish's metes and bounds on what is called a ministry support team.

Since Holy Communion was celebrated, apparently someone present was in orders. Has anyone experience of this sort of arrangement?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

Ordained Local Ministers are a very prominent part of the landscape of the Church of England as assistant clergy in parishes, &c, with a particular role to play in parish life, and sometimes go on to become priests-in-charge/incumbents. I'm guessing this arrangement isn't as widespread in TEC.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Sounds much the same as in the Presbyterian church of Aotearoa New Zealand. Even the title sounds familiar. Rev M was ordained minister of Word and Sacraments in a parish where I worshiped; I think she continues her studies and had her status raised when she moved on.

GG

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

I forgot to say that this is also fairly standard practice in a number of Orthodox jurisdictions. Someone from the local parish will be observed, called, prepared, and eventually ordained to serve his parish.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The other day I visited an Anglican church some distance from my normal church gaff, and was surprised to observe that a Deacon was in sole leadership in the church.

She told me that she was a permanent curate, that she would eventually be Priested so she could preside at the Eucharist (avoiding the need to have a passing Priest consecrate elements on mass once in a while) but she'd never be considered to be a full incumbent NSM because it had been decided that the priesthood needed degree level qualifications. She was retired and had been working in a care profession all her life.

She also said that the diocese had determined that in that deanery, stipendiary priests would not be replaced and instead parishes would have to find their own NSMs, local ministers and other forms of ministry.

She also told me some other things that I'd better not repeat because it made me a bit [Mad]

[ 02. March 2016, 07:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Mr Cheesy, was she an OLM in her deacon's year, in which case what you describe would be normal, or was she a permanent deacon who might sometime in the future be ordained as a priest as well, in which case that would be unusual? There are very few permanent deacons in the CofE. The only one I know is someone who has temporarily pulled out of the more usual career progression part way through the year. There may, though, be a few who are women who either dot themselves believe women can be priests, or who serve in parishes that don't.

Alternatively, were you in a different province which might do things differently?

[ 02. March 2016, 08:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mr Cheesy, was she an OLM in her deacon's year, in which case what you describe would be normal, or was she a permanent deacon who might sometime in the future be ordained as a priest as well, in which case that would be unusual? There are very few permanent deacons in the CofE.

Well as I understood what she was saying, she is currently a permanent deacon and is doing some kind of course in the diocese which will eventually lead to her being Priested. But even then she's going to remain an assistant curate (I think she said) in this particular parish. I don't think she is just a temporary deacon in the normal way of things.

quote:
The only one I know is someone who has temporarily pulled out of the more usual career progression part way through the year. There may, though, be a few who are women who either dot themselves believe women can be priests, or who serve in parishes that don't.

Alternatively, were you in a different province which might do things differently?

Well it wasn't in the Church of England. As I said, the deal appeared to be that she'd been ordained a deacon in order to do the majority of the roles in the church. From what I understood her to be saying, she is going to be priested in order to do all the other roles, but that will not lead to her ever being a full NSM as I think we'd understand it in England.

Or it is possible that this is also happening in England and I'm just unfamiliar with the practice.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Regardless of whether or not one is the pastor/vicar/rector/incumbent/whatever, one is either a priest, or one is not. One is either a deacon, or one is not. Whether they were locally chosen and/or trained becomes irrelevant (in terms of the person's abilities to celebrate sacraments) once one is ordained.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Regardless of whether or not one is the pastor/vicar/rector/incumbent/whatever, one is either a priest, or one is not. One is either a deacon, or one is not. Whether they were locally chosen and/or trained becomes irrelevant (in terms of the person's abilities to celebrate sacraments) once one is ordained.

That is true, and I was thinking that the MW was being a bit down on the church even though the leaders had been through the proper procedures within the denom.

I'm sure everyone is doing their best, like the deacon I met.

That said, I think the implication of the report - that the wider church in the area might be said to be struggling - is probably a good one.

[ 02. March 2016, 13:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Regardless of whether or not one is the pastor/vicar/rector/incumbent/whatever, one is either a priest, or one is not. One is either a deacon, or one is not. Whether they were locally chosen and/or trained becomes irrelevant (in terms of the person's abilities to celebrate sacraments) once one is ordained.

I think that is the point. The OP suggested that the clergy can only operate within the parish. If one is a priest, one is, ontologically, a priest everywhere.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Ontologically yes - but OLMs in the C of E are only allowed to exercise their priesthood in the benefice to which they are licensed.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Regardless of whether or not one is the pastor/vicar/rector/incumbent/whatever, one is either a priest, or one is not. One is either a deacon, or one is not. Whether they were locally chosen and/or trained becomes irrelevant (in terms of the person's abilities to celebrate sacraments) once one is ordained.
I think that is the point. The OP suggested that the clergy can only operate within the parish. If one is a priest, one is, ontologically, a priest everywhere.

Ontologically, but not operationally. Clergy are licensed by bishops to minister in a particular place and, if they move somewhere else (e.g., on retirement or to follow a spouse's job-related move) they needed to be licensed to serve in their new location.
Different Anglican churches have different sets of canons-- TEC, for instance, has a
In some places
specific canon addressing how locally-ordained clergy are chosen and how they operate. In some national churches, moving from the locally-ordained (OLM) ministry to the general-service category has its complications.

Permanent deacons are supposed to stay in that role but there is often pressure for them to become a "real clergyman." The Diocese of Ottawa's first permanent deacon, an anthropologist ordained about a half-century ago, was soon pushed into being priested by the next bishop.

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

In TEC there was a canon differentiating priests by the process by which they came to ordination. Those called forth by their parish and locally trained (i.e., within the diocese vs attending seminary) fell under Canon 9. They followed the same canonical process in terms of review by the bishop, the Commission on Ministry, the Standing Committee. When ordained to the transitional deaconate and then to the priesthood they were restricted to serving only within the congregation that had called them forth. They were ordained “to the parish” and not “to the world”. Yes, they were full priests, but with limited scope as it were.

That Canon was removed by TEC’s General Convention in 2003. The requirements for education, training, review, etc. are now the same for any individual called to ordination. The educational requirements, while broadly spelled out by canon, must meet the standards established by the individual diocese. Although all are now ordained “to the world” those with local training are still generally restricted to serving only within the parish that called them. However at their bishop’s discretion they may serve in other parishes as supply, etc.

Many bishops will not allow locally trained clergy to serve as incumbent, deferring those positions to ‘professionally trained’ clergy. Some of this preference is tied to the level of debt professionally trained clergy carry due to seminary costs, and the bishop’s desire to put them in a paid position so that they may payoff their tuition loans. Locally trained clergy have no such debt and generally serve unpaid, and frequently are retired from other professions or have paid employment in non-church related professions. Thus they become a bit of a financial fix for parishes in financial difficulty and unable to pay the salary and benefits for professional clergy.

I have served on the Commission on Ministry within my diocese for several terms, under different bishops, and also served on the Standing Committee. Our standards for ordination in either body were the same, regardless of the educational track.

I assume the clergy at the parish in question were locally trained, serving part time within the parish while being self supporting through a 'day job'.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There may, though, be a few who are women who either dot themselves believe women can be priests, or who serve in parishes that don't.

Women deacons in FiF have come up on here from time to time. (Someone - Max? - unearthed a photo of the National Pilgrimage at Walsingham showing a handful of collared women wearing FiF pins on their cassocks). When the Church in Wales was debating women in the episcopate not long ago one of the more prominent spokespersons in the press for the "Nay" side was a deacon and a woman.

The most educational part of this report for me was that there's another Sault Ste Marie!

[ 02. March 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That said, I think the implication of the report - that the wider church in the area might be said to be struggling - is probably a good one.

In my (Presbyterian) experience, it's often a function of the area itself suffering, not just the church in that area. We have a similar arrangement in the PC(USA)—they're called "commissioned ruling elders" (CREs) They must already be ordained elders, and they go through training arranged through the presbytery. Once trained, they can be commissioned to serve, including administering the sacraments, in a specific congregation.

From what I have seen, the congregations that need CREs are small congregations in areas that are either loosing population (usually rural) or are where there is significant poverty (rural or urban) that can't afford a full- or even part-time minister. Particularly if the setting is more urban, the church in the area might be doing okay overall, but a particular congregation may be in a struggling pocket.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

This interesting part of the question makes me think of TEC's similar move in the 1950s, with what was then called the perpetual diaconate. These were similar to today's permanent deacons, but as others have described here, were called and trained within their own parish. One such perpetual deacon was a mentor to me in my teenage years, even though at that time he was well into his eighties. He was a music professor and had become the parish organist in 1950. Six years later, facing a clerical shortage, the bishop gave permission for him to be ordained a perpetual deacon. Naturally, being a professor, he was already highly educated, so he took some training for ministry and was ordained. He continued to serve in his own parish. This was done in a number of rapidly-growing dioceses at the time, especially in the American South and West. When the permanent diaconate came along later, that ended the perpetual diaconate, and the two became indistinguishable to those in the pew.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Ordained Local Ministers are a very prominent part of the landscape of the Church of England as assistant clergy in parishes, &c, with a particular role to play in parish life, and sometimes go on to become priests-in-charge/incumbents. I'm guessing this arrangement isn't as widespread in TEC.

Ah. That makes all kinds of sense, for some reason the parallel escaped me.

I think I became fixated on 'imported'.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Thinking about it, I suppose a parallel might be how in the RCC some men were once ordained 'simplex', with faculties to say Mass, but not to preach or hear confessions. That doesn't happen any more, of course. Likewise in Orthodoxy, as I understand it, a priest does not automatically have the right to hear confessions. That is something granted specifically by the bishop.

But restricting the exercise of someone's priesthood geographically makes less sense. If I were a OLM who was considered capable of, say, preaching, why would it make sense that I could preach in St Mary's, where I lived, but not in St Joseph's, where I happened to be on holiday and the local priest indisposed?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

But restricting the exercise of someone's priesthood geographically makes less sense. If I were a OLM who was considered capable of, say, preaching, why would it make sense that I could preach in St Mary's, where I lived, but not in St Joseph's, where I happened to be on holiday and the local priest indisposed?

Well, because the bishop and the diocese/province are responsible for those preaching under their jurisdiction. You don't just get to make arrangements with another priest to step into their shoes.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Well, because the bishop and the diocese/province are responsible for those preaching under their jurisdiction. You don't just get to make arrangements with another priest to step into their shoes.

I don't think that is right. In neither the RCC or the CofE have I ever known that a parish priest needs the bishop's approval for a visiting preacher - as long as they are canonically qualified. And that is the point. How does it make sense that if someone is judged by the bishop to be qualified to preach, by education, apptitude, etc, he can do so in one parish, but not, at the Incumbent's request, in the parish down the road?

That is why it makes more sense to ordain someone simplex, as the RCC once did. They are saying 'Yes, he can say Mass, but his education isn't up to preaching'.

[edited to fix code]

[ 04. March 2016, 13:49: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

I don't think that is right. In neither the RCC or the CofE have I ever known that a parish priest needs the bishop's approval for a visiting preacher - as long as they are canonically qualified. And that is the point. How does it make sense that if someone is judged by the bishop to be qualified to preach, by education, apptitude, etc, he can do so in one parish, but not, at the Incumbent's request, in the parish down the road?

Maybe it depends on exactly what the stand-in will be doing. Clearly in the case we're discussing here, the Bishop has only licensed the priest to a particular parish, so presumably it wouldn't be possible (or at least wouldn't be seen as being correct) to ask them to stand-in elsewhere.

quote:
That is why it makes more sense to ordain someone simplex, as the RCC once did. They are saying 'Yes, he can say Mass, but his education isn't up to preaching'.

I don't think that makes any more sense.. the priests under discussion are fully able to do all of their functions, they just are limited by geography.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
In neither the RCC or the CofE have I ever known that a parish priest needs the bishop's approval for a visiting preacher

Your sources are out of date, then. Whenever I perform any priestly ministry in another diocese, I need to have my provincial superior provide a letter of good standing to the diocese I'll be ministering in. In fact, this was also true when, as a transitional deacon, I was invited to preach at a parish in another diocese and not do anything else (except assist at Mass as a deacon).

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
In neither the RCC or the CofE have I ever known that a parish priest needs the bishop's approval for a visiting preacher
Your sources are out of date, then. Whenever I perform any priestly ministry in another diocese, I need to have my provincial superior provide a letter of good standing to the diocese I'll be ministering in. In fact, this was also true when, as a transitional deacon, I was invited to preach at a parish in another diocese and not do anything else (except assist at Mass as a deacon).

I don't know if you are a Roman Catholic or an Anglican. If a Roman Catholic, then I guess you are speaking of a celebret. That is different from requiring specific permission to preach in a parish other than the one to which you are appointed, or being ordained and licensed with permission to only preach in a particular parish. If Anglican, then things in TEC are clearly different to the CofE.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Just to confirm what others have said about a priest/deacon in the Anglican Church (well, CofE and Church of Ireland, at any rate) requiring a license or a Permission to Officiate certificate in order to actually carry out the duties of a minister within a parish.

When I moved from the Republic to the North of Ireland I met with the diocesan here to obtain a PTO, not being attached formally to any particular parish. Of course, I could've responded to invitations from colleagues to preach or take services - but strictly speaking they ought to have cleared with the Bish that that was okay, and/or I ought to have had my PTO in order.

I also recall in my last parish that if I wanted to have a clergyperson outside of the diocese doing a guest preach, or taking a service, the Bishop made it crystal clear permission - written - from him had to be granted. I suppose it's part of the share of the cure of souls; incumbents are curates of the Bishop, pastoring people in the parishes on behalf of the Ordinary. So s/he, as overseer, has that right.

Needless to say, one might've heard of a few infringements here and there across the British Isles, where such technicalities were not strictly observed!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
]I don't know if you are a Roman Catholic or an Anglican

Adam is the very best sort of RC.

There were three MW reports in connection with his priestly ordination.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
If a Roman Catholic, then I guess you are speaking of a celebret.

venbede has answered (with too much kindness) the question that is also answered in my profile. (Click on a poster's name to the left of their post to see this).

I'm not speaking of a celebret, actually. I can preach in any parish of my current diocese, but to preach in any other diocese would require a letter of good standing be sent. One of our seminarians is serving a friend's wedding in another diocese next month (as in, literally, just being an altar server) and they've asked him for a letter of good standing to do that.

If you learnt this stuff pre-Dallas charter (2002): that changed everything. Although, even before then, I'm pretty sure clerics needed faculties from the local ordinary to preach (ie. local to where the preaching is occuring). If you have faculties to hear confessions somewhere, you have them everywhere, but I don't think that was true of preaching.

[ 04. March 2016, 20:32: Message edited by: Adam. ]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Adam - well that is all new to me. But maybe things are different in the US. I was Secretary to my Religious Superior (acting as a chancellor would in a diocese). I issued and countersigned celebrets. Priests on the strength of that said Mass, preached, etc in the UK and Europe. I never had to issue a letter of good standing, I was never asked for one, and, as far as I know, neither did my superior.

But as I say, maybe the US is different.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Reading between the lines I suspect this concern for a reference is due to sex scandals.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Reading between the lines I suspect this concern for a reference is due to sex scandals.

I think that is almost certainly true. Without looking it up, I guess that is what the 'Dallas Charter' is about. But that would be a particular law imposed by the bishop or USCCB. It is certainly not in the universal law.

And it is a bit of a red herring.

The point I am trying to make (and probably making badly) is this:

If someone is a priest, that is an ontological reality. They are a priest not just everywhere, but for all time.

What a priest can or cannot do is a matter for authority to decide. Someone may be able to say Mass, but be a bit dim and not really able to hear confessions or preach. That was the old 'simplex' priest.

Someone may be a fine curate, but not really up to being a parish priest, running things.

That all makes sense. It is granting faculties, or licensing, or whatever, based on the abilities and education of the priest in question.

But it does not seem to make much sense to me (and correct me if I have got this wrong- I am sure someone will!) for someone who is licensed by the bishop to administer all the sacraments and preach in the parish of St Onesiphorus to be unable to do any of it in the Parish of St Porphyrius down the road.

Now I know there is canon law, and conventions about the Vicar asking a visiting priest to help out and all that. That's not what I am talking about.

I hope it is clear what I am trying to say. I am sorry if my expression of it lacks, or has lacked, clarity. I am not free from the vice of typing something out and pressing 'post' without reading it back to myself to see if it makes sense.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Who was it who said that "all politics is local?" Well, all ecclesiology is local too. One diocesan bishop can rarely tell another what to do (unless the former happens to be the bishop of Rome), including who to authorize for ministry. Sacramental potestas is different from jurisdiction.

Being in extra-parochial ministry right now, I need delegation from the local pastor to receive any marriage vows anywhere. There was a case that went to the Rota a few years ago where a cardinal forget to obtain such delegation and the putative marriage was annulled. That everyone's jurisdiction is limited (except the Holy Father's) is not just juridical nicety, but actual a profound ecclesiological statement. It also happens to be a safeguard about clerics "going rogue."

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Who was it who said that "all politics is local?" Well, all ecclesiology is local too. One diocesan bishop can rarely tell another what to do (unless the former happens to be the bishop of Rome), including who to authorize for ministry. Sacramental potestas is different from jurisdiction.

Being in extra-parochial ministry right now, I need delegation from the local pastor to receive any marriage vows anywhere. There was a case that went to the Rota a few years ago where a cardinal forget to obtain such delegation and the putative marriage was annulled. That everyone's jurisdiction is limited (except the Holy Father's) is not just juridical nicety, but actual a profound ecclesiological statement. It also happens to be a safeguard about clerics "going rogue."

Well, the Holy Father's jurisdiction is limited too, as 'The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England' (Article 37)!

I avoided mentioning marriage, as it is a rather particular case, with specific legal requirements. In any case, the celebrants of the sacrament of matrimony are the couple contracting the marriage, not the cleric who happens to witness the vows and bless them.

Is saying Mass an exercise of jurisdiction (and therefore limited) rather than a matter of sacramental potestas?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Is saying Mass an exercise of jurisdiction (and therefore limited) rather than a matter of sacramental potestas?

I may be out of my depth here, but I though the understanding is that the bishop is chief pastor of the diocese, and anything a priest does in a parish context he does as the bishop's delegate. So it would make sense that the ability to celebrate Mass with the people of a parish is indeed a matter of jurisdiction, or of delegated authority.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

Is saying Mass an exercise of jurisdiction (and therefore limited) rather than a matter of sacramental potestas?

Notions of jurisdiction don't really apply to celebrating Mass. The Code has this to say:

quote:

Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

§2. A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed.

They go on to mention the letter sometimes called a celebret referred to as a "letter of introduction" in the Code. In the US, the letter of good standing replaces this. But, a priest does not require faculties to celebrate Mass validly, or licitly (unless impeded).

This could be differentiated from, say, confession, for which the priest does need faculties, which may be given either by the law itself (in certain circumstances) or by competent authority. These faculties, though once granted, are not local. Hence, confession could be further differentiated from baptism, where the law stipulates that:

quote:

Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I should also add that I don't really consider myself expert in any of these things. I know that I can say private Masses on vacation (my faculties from the local bishop allow that) and that for anything else I should contact our Provincial Business Office before doing anything. We have people (who it sounds like do much of what you did) who worry about all the details for us!

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Well I am not a canon lawyer. And things do seem to be a bit more lax here in Europe.

In writing a celebret for one of my sometime confreres I got my Latin wrong and described him as a 'monarch' rather than a 'monk'. He happily travelled around Europe saying Mass in traddy places in France without any problem. I don't suppose anyone did more than glance at any of the celebrets I issued, and if they did, the vast majority would have been able to make nothing of them, such is the lack of Latin among the clergy.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:

In writing a celebret for one of my sometime confreres I got my Latin wrong and described him as a 'monarch' rather than a 'monk'.

Some clerics I know seem to suffer from a similar delusion [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0