Thread: Ordaining at St Paul's today, Saturday 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=025857
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Many of us, thousands, have been this afternoon to St Paul's Cathedral, where many, 30, were ordained, both men and women. It lasted for over two hours, and we also got communion.
We had good hymns and good prayers and good readings from the Bible.
It's quite a noisy music, and a big cathedral, quite old with interesting things where people who died are remembered and stuck there.
Any others of you there today? Maybe others go there at other times...
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I was there, seeing a old friend made deacon.
Enjoyable hymns, somewhat less in the way of worship songs than in previous years. First reading was taken by the Bishop of Fulham's PA (WTF?), the second by one of the ordinands. They weren't the lectionary texts for the day.
My friends didn't think much of Londin's sermon--I'm quite used to his ordination sermons by now, but they weren't and thought it was more like a CEO reporting to a board of directors with the press present. He said 'Beloved' six times.
Incidentally, daisymay, your new curate is a very nice chap.
Of the 30 deacons beginning their curacies today, 22 were male and 8 female. Three were going to HTB and two to St Margaret Lothbury (all men).
[ 29. June 2013, 20:20: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
There seems to be a trend in the C of E to treat the Deacons' ordination as the 'real thing', and the 'priesting' [sic] as the top-up. When I said to a deacon in this diocese recently something about looking forward to her ordination, I was corrected.
Do people really think that putting on a dog-collar for the first time (but not being authorised to do much more than they could as a lay person) is more significant than being ordained to the priesthood? And since when was 'priest' a verb?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
In places where the ordination of deacons is done by the diocesan bishop in the cathedral with great pomp and ceremony, and the ordination of priests is done by area bishops in parish churches, the ordination of deacons becomes the big deal. How many other dioceses besides London do this? And do they all do it for the same reason as Londin does?
I first heard 'priest' used as a verb 11 or 12 years ago.
Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And since when was 'priest' a verb?
The earliest example of this usage in the OED is dated 1504.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
And do they all do it for the same reason as Londin does?
If you mean the DH reason then no, but Toronto has a similar "area federalist" setup and so ordinations play out in much the same way, with the spring ordination of deacons always occurring on the first Sunday in May at the cathedral or (when numbers necessitate) at St Paul's, Bloor Street. Priestly ordinations are then carried out at various intervals by the area bishops, in the parish where the curates serve. (Sometimes two parishes in a deanery will double up and one building will host two congregations).
Pace Angloid, I tend to be put off when people count their anniversaries "of ordination" (without qualification) when they mean priestly ordination, which surely is grounded in that first, "gateway" ordination.
[ 29. June 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
In places where the ordination of deacons is done by the diocesan bishop in the cathedral with great pomp and ceremony, and the ordination of priests is done by area bishops in parish churches, the ordination of deacons becomes the big deal. How many other dioceses besides London do this? And do they all do it for the same reason as Londin does?
At Southwark Petertide ordinations, the Deacons are ordained in the cathedral by the diocesan bishop and the priests by their area bishop in a parish church. At the Michaelmas ordinations, it's the other way around.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Many of us, thousands, have been this afternoon to St Paul's Cathedral ........
It's quite a noisy music, and a big cathedral, quite old with interesting things where people who died are remembered and stuck there.
That has to be the understatement of the century!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
My friends didn't think much of Londin's sermon--I'm quite used to his ordination sermons by now, but they weren't and thought it was more like a CEO reporting to a board of directors with the press present. He said 'Beloved' six times.
Only time I've been to a London ordination, and was a bridesmaid, I turned to my neighbour and said "next time, it's going to be 'and also with you, darling!'
Thurible
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There seems to be a trend in the C of E to treat the Deacons' ordination as the 'real thing', and the 'priesting' [sic] as the top-up. When I said to a deacon in this diocese recently something about looking forward to her ordination, I was corrected.
She has been trained well then.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people really think that putting on a dog-collar for the first time (but not being authorised to do much more than they could as a lay person) is more significant than being ordained to the priesthood?
Hell yes.
It's interesting that deacons are ordained in the Cathedral and priests regionally.
Is the C of E moving from a transitional diaconate to the old model of a permanent dioaconate expressing itself as a separate ministry between the world and the church?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people really think that putting on a dog-collar for the first time (but not being authorised to do much more than they could as a lay person) is more significant than being ordained to the priesthood?
Hell yes.
Why?
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
I do know that some priests look to their ordination to the diaconate when they celebrate x-many years of ordination, their view being that a priest is still a deacon and the diaconate is a major order.......
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
A colleague of mine went to be sort of 'best man' to a deacon who'd formerly been our church warden. he reckoned it was very impressive (not least compared to the ordination we went to this morning when our deacon was 'priested'.
As for diaconal ordination not being the real deal, surely wearing a collar, starting in a parish - people treat you differently because you are no ,longer a lay person (well, technically we are all loaos but you know what i mean.)
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people really think that putting on a dog-collar for the first time (but not being authorised to do much more than they could as a lay person) is more significant than being ordained to the priesthood?
Hell yes.
Why?
A friend of mine saw his Diaconal ordination as the big deal as it signified (to him) the start of a completely new way of life. He had come to the end of a rigorous college course, moved into a new home, started a new job, wore a funny shirt and had "The Rev'd" in front of his name.
His priestly ordination he saw as an extension to that and didn't make too much of it, instead opting to have a big celebration on the occasion of his first Mass as he saw that as the next big step.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Yes, I see all that. It just rather seems to me to reflect distorted priorities: a 'big do' when someone is ordained deacon compared to the often hole-in-the-corner way the he or she might have been baptised. Which is much the more important vocation,
And to dress up in clerical clothes and be called 'reverend' doesn't say much about servant ministry to my mind, which is what the diaconate is. Especially as in practice most people will treat them as if they were already priests and forget about the 'servant' aspect.
Not that there should be a lot of palava about ordination to the priesthood either. Compared to baptism that too is a minor calling. But it is a distinctive ministry and shouldn't to my mind be treated as secondary or as an incidental top-up of the diaconate.
But I suppose that is all matter for Purgatory really.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Sorry to double post but my quibble really arose from the common use of the term 'ordination' (without qualification) to refer to the deaconing [sic] and not to use it for the 'priesting'. In the BCP (of which I am not a big fan, but it does represent Anglican tradition) though 'ordination' is used of all three orders, the preferred expression seems to be 'making' deacons, 'ordaining' priests and 'consecrating' bishops. Thus implying that the ordination is really to the priesthood.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There seems to be a trend in the C of E to treat the Deacons' ordination as the 'real thing', and the 'priesting' [sic] as the top-up. ...
One reason is that when most clergy were ordained young and full time, ordination as a deacon visibly marked the move from being an ordinary person to being a paid, clerical, person. It was also the point at which a person moved from the third to the second estate and until about 12 years ago became disqualified from being an MP.
It makes more sense, whatever the theory, to think of the year people are deacons as more like a probationary period or an apprenticeship, particularly since clergy remain deacons even after they become priests or bishops.
There are quite a number of secular roles in which there are restrictions on what people can do in the first few years after qualification, admission or whatever.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
We definitely treat priestly ordination as a bigger deal than diaconal for those being ordained as transitional deacons. I think the idea is that your last (expected) ordination should be the bigger celebration. So, an ordination of permanent deacons would be a bigger deal than ordination of transitional deacons. We don't (officially ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) have transitional priests, so that ordination becomes the main event.
For us religious, profession of perpetual vows and priestly ordination are about the same level of celebration. We do both of those on Saturdays at our basilica and invite large crowds. Diaconate ordination (which is the day after Final Vows) is done in the seminary with community members, family and friends.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Are all your professed members ordained, Hart?
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
No, for brothers, Final Vows would be the one big celebration.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Back in the day, when I was ordained, deacons and priests were ordained by the bishop and the suffragan (and any other visiting/assisting bishops) at one big service at the cathedral after a shared retreat. This was, I think, eventually split into two services, though both were at the cathedral and both involved the bishop.
I've always associated the practice of ordaining priests separately by area with the Diocese of London, where it is related to the DH issue. Doing it this way, of course, necessarily makes the ordination to the diaconate the big service because it's at St Paul's, the Bishop of London is presiding, and there is a metric fucktonne of pomp and grandiosity.
Question: I see that a woman has been ordained to a title parish in the Edmonton area. Who will ordain her to the priesthood?
[ 01. July 2013, 07:01: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Question: I see that a woman has been ordained to a title parish in the Edmonton area. Who will ordain her to the priesthood?
She will be ordained by another Bishop (probably one from outside London). There was a joint ordination service at Hampstead Parish Church some years ago when 4 women were ordained. I cannot remember the name of the Bishop.
Interestingly the Bishop of Edmonton was at the reception service at Whetstone for the delightful priest there (she used to be a singer) but I think she had already been ordained and was being confirmed as incumbent.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amos:
[qb] Question: I see that a woman has been ordained to a title parish in the Edmonton area. Who will ordain her to the priesthood?
I'd've guessed that Willesden/Stepney/Kensington would have crossed into Edmonton rather than importing from elsewhere.
Thurible
Posted by Sarum Sleuth (# 162) on
:
Most of the female clergy I know who were ordained in the Edmonton Area had their orders conferred by retired bishops within the Diocese of London.
In Derby Diocese the deacons are all ordained at the cathedral, and the priests are ordained in two parish churches in the north and south of the diocese respectively.
SS
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
The Bishop of London was at St Paul's being busy there on Saturday and he was very friendly. The other ones, in charge of churches, wore white hats as they also acted.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Yes daisymay, this would be the usual way of going about things. If multiple bishops are present (as tends to happen at such occasions), only the most senior wear's the full get-up with gold mitre, while the others wear a simple white one. A bishop is, in principle, the chief shepherd of his or her people, the focus of their unity in Christ and the symbol of the unbroken line that we believes links our Christian life to that first fellowship of the Apostles. To have multiple bishops present dilutes all this symbolism, hence the distinction in their vesture.
Of course, it might be objected that the proliferation of bishops (even not mentioning the 'flying' ones and, of course, those of other denominations) has rather diluted the symbolism already. Perhaps we might say that the bishops' robes are pointing towards a situation rather more perfect than the messy reality?
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Yes daisymay, this would be the usual way of going about things. If multiple bishops are present (as tends to happen at such occasions), only the most senior wear's the full get-up with gold mitre, while the others wear a simple white one.
I was at a multiple-bishop service last year. The diocesan (presiding at the Eucharist) wore a gold mitre, while all the others wore white. With the exception of one (who will remain nameless) who declared that he didn't have a white mitre. (So he wore a bright red one instead.)
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
What exactly *are* red mitres? Are they meant to be auriphrygiata or pretiosa? Or (as the Father-in-God above) in place of (and in seriously tangential relation to) a simplex? And why on earth would any bishop not have a mitra simplex? [wanders off in a huff]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Yes daisymay, this would be the usual way of going about things. If multiple bishops are present (as tends to happen at such occasions), only the most senior wear's the full get-up with gold mitre, while the others wear a simple white one.
I was at a multiple-bishop service last year. The diocesan (presiding at the Eucharist) wore a gold mitre, while all the others wore white. With the exception of one (who will remain nameless) who declared that he didn't have a white mitre. (So he wore a bright red one instead.)
Oh, come on! Who was it? No shame in wearing a red mitre if it's your only one, or (according to mediaeval use--according to St P) your best one. I knew a bishop once who had a cunning little mitre-shaped box, with a hinge and a handle to carry his around in.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I knew a bishop who used to keep his in a polythene bag. When he knew that a church would have vestments ready for him that's all he used to bring.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What exactly *are* red mitres? Are they meant to be auriphrygiata or pretiosa? Or (as the Father-in-God above) in place of (and in seriously tangential relation to) a simplex? And why on earth would any bishop not have a mitra simplex? [wanders off in a huff]
I'm sure what you must mean refers to the recent trend of mitres made up as part of a liturgical colored Mass or cope vestment set. That would be a mitre of the same material and color in either white, green, red or violet. Sometimes one sees the multi-colored effect of a mitre made up applique to match colorful, festive vestments. To a greater or lesser extent, that is being done by both Anglicans and Roman Catholic bishops, and I have seen many photos of that newly developed custom.
Currently, Roman Catholic bishops tend to stick closer to the traditional precious-gold-simplex mitre fabrics, especially when they gather for some ceremonial activity in groups. Anglican bishops be less rigid about following such traditional mitre rules, which can be distressful to the artistic eye of the interested and keen rubricist.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
What exactly *are* red mitres? Are they meant to be auriphrygiata or pretiosa? Or (as the Father-in-God above) in place of (and in seriously tangential relation to) a simplex? And why on earth would any bishop not have a mitra simplex? [wanders off in a huff]
Nope. Didn't get any of that.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And why on earth would any bishop not have a mitra simplex?
Lots of would-be bishops have a mitra complex.
But I'm with Karl on this one.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Anglican bishops be less rigid about following such traditional mitre rules, which can be distressful to the artistic eye of the interested and keen rubricist.
I don't think you need to be a rubricist of any variety to find some episcopal headgear distressing or at least distracting. I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury seeks some style advice asap.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury seeks some style advice asap.
Likewise. When you're in the same vestment bracket as Katherine Jefferts Schori, it's time to visit Tufton St...
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Anglican bishops be less rigid about following such traditional mitre rules, which can be distressful to the artistic eye of the interested and keen rubricist.
I don't think you need to be a rubricist of any variety to find some episcopal headgear distressing or at least distracting. I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury seeks some style advice asap.
Black shirt, purple cassock, white rochet, red chimere and black tippet is a particularly hideous combination.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/02/archbishop-canterbury-faith-women-ministry
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Anglican bishops be less rigid about following such traditional mitre rules, which can be distressful to the artistic eye of the interested and keen rubricist.
I don't think you need to be a rubricist of any variety to find some episcopal headgear distressing or at least distracting. I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury seeks some style advice asap.
Black shirt, purple cassock, white rochet, red chimere and black tippet is a particularly hideous combination.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/02/archbishop-canterbury-faith-women-ministry
Well, done right there a) shouldn't be a black shirt with a cassock, and if there is it certainly shouldn't show, and b) precious little of the cassock showing, provided the rochet be ample enough and long enough, which it seldom is.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
UP the airy mountain,
Down the rushy glen,
We daren't go a-hunting
For fear of little men;
Wee folk, good folk,
Trooping all together;
Red mitre, black shirt,
And white owl's feather!
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
OK, getting back on subject ...
We were saying that the Deacons' ordination Is a big deal as it signifies a complete change of lifestyle, and this has got me thinking.
As I said upthread, here in Southwark the deacons are ordained by the diocesan bishop in the cathedral and the priests by an area bishop in a parish church at Petertide and the other way around at Michaelmas. Those ordained at Michaelmas in Southwark are usually NSMs, so ordination to the diaconate isn't going to be that much of a change. Most, if not all will have been active lay people before ordination so, apart from possibly moving to a new parish, their role changes very little. Ordination to the priesthood for NSMs really is the big deal, hence all the pomp and ceremony at the cathedral.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0