Father Alvin Kimel:
'...Whatever I was as a priest within the Anglican Communion has now been gathered into the deeper, more fundamental and primary ecclesial reality that simply is the Catholic Church. I do not know the words to express this newness and difference. Certainly the canonical categories employed in Apostolicae curae do not adequately capture it. Yet at an existential level, I understand now why the Catholic Church has always insisted upon the absolute ordination of Anglican priests. The Catholic priest is different. His ministry is different. He is a priest in a way that an Anglican presbyter can never be a priest. This is not a matter of intention, belief, or practice. I know many godly Anglo-Catholic priests who ardently believe they are priests as truly as any Catholic or Orthodox priest … and yet they are not, because the Church in which they serve and minister is not the Church in the same way that the Catholic Church is the Church. The catholicity of the Anglican presbyter will always remain optional...'
'...This is why the debate on the validity of Anglican Orders so quickly descends into irrelevance. It’s not just a matter of proving an unbroken historic succession of properly ordained ordaining hands. Be the physical links ever so intact, yet the sacerdotal line is ruptured if Anglicanism is not Church in doctrinal and catholic fullness; and by both Catholic and Orthodox standards, it is not. How can the Anglican Church, for example, pass on the sacerdotium, when it has always denied a sacrificing priesthood?...'
Dr C. B. Moss:
The Anglican Communion claims that its bishops, priests, and deacons are bishops, priests, and deacons in the sense in which those words were used by the ancient Church and by the Roman Communion today. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a bishop in the same sense as the Pope. Every Anglican priest is as much a priest as any Romanist priest. It is his duty and his privilege to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, to give absolution, and to bless in the name of the Church; and this claim is supported by the Prayer Book...' (The Christian Faith, 408).
There were three stages in the sacrifice or self-offering of our Lord, corresponding to three stages in the Old Testament sacrifices. The first was His death on the Cross, corresponding to the slaying of the victim. The second is His perpetual self-offering in Heaven which began with His Ascension and corresponds to the entry of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies carrying the blood of the sin offering on the Day of Atonement. The third is the Holy Eucharist, corresponding to the feast upon the sacrifice which belonged to the peace offering.
The sacrifice of Christ is one and cannot be repeated. There is no sacrifice in the Christian religion other than the sacrifice of Christ. The Holy Eucharist is not in any sense whatever a repetition of Christ's death on the Cross or of His offering of Himself in Heaven. It is not called a sacrifice in the New Testament, nor are the Christian ministers called priests (hiereis). The reason is clear. Jewish priests and heathen priests were well known to the first readers of the New Testament. If the Christian presbuteroi (elders) had been called priests, it would have been supposed that animal sacrifice was part of their duty. But animal sacrifice had been abolished.
Nevertheless, sacrificial language was used of the Eucharist, as we have seen, by our Lord Himself, who said, "This is My blood of the covenant", when He instituted the Eucharist. St. Paul called himself leitourgos, a sacrificial word (Rom. 15:16), doing priestly work (hierourgounta), that the offering (prosphora) of the Gentiles might be made acceptable. He contrasted the "table of the Lord" with "the table of devils", the heathen sacrifices (I Cor. 10:21), showing that he regarded the Christian Eucharist as sacrificial. The sacrifice of Christ was the Christian Passover; "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast" (I Cor. 5:7). Compare also I Cor. 10:18: the Jews who "eat the sacrifices" and "have communion with the altar" are compared to the Christian at the Eucharist.
All the Fathers beginning with St. Clement of Rome called the Eucharist a sacrifice. So do all the ancient liturgies. But whereas the New Testament appears to regard the Eucharist as corresponding to the feast which was the last stage of the sacrifice, the Fathers taught that it was also the representation of earth of what is continually going on in Heaven. As the Epistle to the Hebrews constantly asserts, our Lord is the true High Priest, "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who passed into the heavens at the Ascension bearing His own blood (like the High Priest into the Holy of Holies), and who perpetually presents to the Father His own life, for His priesthood is unchangeable (7:24). The Christian Church of which He is the Head is "a royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:9) sharing the priesthood of its Head and His heavenly work of offering. This the Church does by the whole of her life which is, ideally, one long self-offering, united with the self-offering of our Lord in Heaven. But she shares in His self-offering especially at the Eucharist, in which the congregation is united with Jesus Christ in Heaven, first by offering His Body and Blood (with which all their other offerings, their alms, the bread and wine, their own lives, are united), and then by receiving it in communion.
The earthly priest is the necessary organ of the Church for this purpose, as the eye is the necessary organ of sight. There can be no offering without him, but the offering is the people's, not his alone... (The Christian Faith, 369, 370).
The word "priest" represents both presbuteros, presbyter, and hiereus, sacerdos. The latter title was given to bishops from the third century onwards and later to priests as well. It describes them as "offering sacrifice". The Christian priest is not a priest in the same sense as the Hebrew priests under the Old Covenant. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Priest in the proper sense under the New Covenant. In what sense the Christian "presbyter" is also "sacerdos", sacrificing priest, has already been explained. The use of the word "presbyter" in the Catholic Church to mean a member of the second order of the Apostolic ministry is not to be confused with its use by the "Reformed churches". The Calvinist "presbyter" is not a priest but a preacher, as we shall see.
The essential duties of the priest which cannot be performed by anyone but a priest (all bishops being also priests) are to consecrate the Eucharist, to give absolution to sinners, to anoint the sick, and to bless in the name of the Church. (Anyone may bless as a father blesses his children, but the blessing of the Church is given only by the bishop, or in his absence by the priest.)
All these duties of the priest belong properly to the bishop and are performed by the priest as the representative of some bishop (or person with the jurisdiction of a bishop). In early times the bishop, when present, was always the celebrant of the Eucharist. The absolution and the blessing in the Eucharist are still given by the bishop of the diocese (or the suffragan or assistant bishop who represents him), even though he is not the celebrant.
The priest is also ordinarily a pastor, teacher, and evangelist. He is the normal minister of baptism. These duties can also be performed by others; but they form the largest part of the priest's work, and his training is chiefly directed to prepare him for carrying them out. Experience has shown that though the functions which are confined to the priest are limited and can easily be learned, priests who should do nothing but perform those functions would be of little use. The priest's highest duty is to consecrate the Eucharist, and the next to give absolution. But the Eucharist must be accompanied by preaching and teaching, and the absolution must usually be accompanied by counsel. Therefore the priest must be a man of holiness, of learning, and of knowledge of human nature. He must know his Bible and be trained in dogmatic, moral, and ascetic theology, and in the art of teaching (The Christian Faith, 393, 394).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
First this ... His Beatitude Jonah, the Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada of the Orthodox Church in America (...
-
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ...
7 comments:
Wisdom from the venerable Father Moss. Amen! Amen! Amen!
It is sad that the once and present Fr. Kimmel still does not see the areas where classical Anglicanism (and Orthodoxy) have their foundational disagreements with Rome: the claims of universal jurisdiction and infallibility and the addition of strange and peculiar doctrines to the ancient Faith. Kimmel is constantly claiming that the Orthodox "really do" agree with him on things like Purgatory, eucharistic adoration, and transubstantiation, but if you press him on these topics the topic gets changed. . .for to assert such agreement is to hold fiction as truth. And yes, I'm being just as acerbic as the Reverend Kimmel, but I've grown tired of his Anglican bashing and his unwillingness to address the issues that resulted in the West breaking from the East and the Church of England breaking from Rome.
So tiring having to constantly go back to these issues.
To my fellow presbyter the Reverend Father Chad+, keep up the good work.
Certainly the canonical categories employed in Apostolicae curae do not adequately capture it.
That's because AC blew the faulty Romanist arguments out the water, so they have to try to 'change the terms' of the debate.
I know many godly Anglo-Catholic priests who ardently believe they are priests as truly as any Catholic or Orthodox priest … and yet they are not, because the Church in which they serve and minister is not the Church in the same way that the Catholic Church is the Church. The catholicity of the Anglican presbyter will always remain optional...'
I wonder what the case is with certain orthodox churches that have faulty christologies and, what's more, deny the very things that Anglican's deny (such as Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, etc.)? Sounds like a lot of special pleading to me.
Be the physical links ever so intact, yet the sacerdotal line is ruptured if Anglicanism is not Church in doctrinal and catholic fullness; and by both Catholic and Orthodox standards, it is not. How can the Anglican Church, for example, pass on the sacerdotium, when it has always denied a sacrificing priesthood?...'
What is he talking about? Doctrinal fullness is a phantasy in Romanism because "doctrine" can always develop into something new and different. So to say that we do not have something which they do not even have is silly and a double standard.
All that said, I wish him all the best in his new ministry in the RC church, and pray that God uses him mightily for His glory.
Father Anderson--Amen!
I pray that God uses him to His glory, but at the moment he is fostering discord and dismay (through "silly and a double standard" based arguments). Humility would speak better of both himself and his new ecclesial home.
DH+
Sorry, I mean SO (the official response to AC) in my above comment!
I have to take issue with the way you put things Anglican Cleric. It would in fact be fairer to say that the RCs "really do" agree with the Orthodox on Purgatory, eucharistic adoration and transubstantiation, rather than the other way around, but there is agreement in essentials.
The reason I say this is that both Anglican and Eastern protests against certain Roman distinctives have been aimed at particular interpretations of Roman doctrine which were very common in the RCC but, it turned out, not actually necessary. The reason these protests are so muted now is that the RCC has since clarified its popular teaching in these areas in a way that effectively co-opts the criticism.
For example, purgatory is seen not simply as God getting his pound of flesh because he must, and in a particular location, but as medicinal discipline of a character of which we cannot claim to know the details, which description is perfectly conformable to Eastern Traditions. Also, transubstantiation is said not to explain how the transformation occurs, much less to define it materialistically or scientifically, but simply to affirm that the Elements really become changed in fundamental identity and nature into the Body and Blood, though mystically and via a spiritual presence. Again, this accords with Patristic teaching, Eastern and Western.
As for Eucharistic adoration, the East has always practised it within the liturgy. The absence of such explicit devotions outside the liturgy has never been interpreted by them as qualifying the Real Presence. Bp Kallistos Ware makes clear that there are no theological reasons as such to condemn extra-liturgical Eucharistic devotions, though there may be some related to what is liturgically fitting.
Even the Roman claims can be interpreted in a minimalist or maximalist fashion. The last two Popes have made statements that imply the ancient Eastern traditions concerning the Papal office must be respected and must be assumed to be compatible with the Western. And this would have implications for how to interpret Latin doctrinal definitions.
The problem is that RCs like Fr Kimel don't take seriously (or even see) how far to the East the RCC has already moved and so refuse to believe some further movement may be both necessary and possible. Instead, they see the rest of the ecumenical endeavour strictly in terms of a "return to us" model.
Fr. Matthew+
Your comments are partially correct, but also partially misleading.
Dogmatic theology texts from the Orthodox clearly spell out the distinct differences between Roman and Orthodox theology. It matters little that the Church of Rome has "muted" its emphasis on Purgatory, or indulgences, or of extra-liturgical uses of the Blessed Sacrament, or of the merits of the saints, or even on papal infallibility. They're still "on the books," as it were. In a sense Rome has "moved" closer to the Orthodox, but as Kimmel+ demonstrates, one can call upon the authoritative teachings of the Pope and Trent in a way that brings these muted things back to full volume.
True, Purgatory can be read in an "Anglican manner" (growth and purification), but many explicit and authoritative teachings put the emphasis on the pound of flesh model (which the Orthodox and most Anglicans reject). True, transubstantiation can make a great deal of sense, and being a bit of a Thomist myself large parts of his theory agree with my mind, but to those such as Kimmel+, to question it is to question the one true teaching of the Presence. As one Orthodox priest wrote to Kimmel while he was in the process of deciding "where to go" after ECUSA "How presumptuous and certain can we be to say that the ousia of the bread no longer exists?" This obviously did not answer the question for Kimmel, but the certainty of the Roman approach did.
I agree that those such as Kimmel+ (being a convert to Rome and seeming to have the need to justify his placement there) put the emphasis on the maximal Roman emphasis, not on the minimalist approach that has some ecumenical success to bridging the gap between Rome and the East.
Instead, he often uses thin arguments such as "the Greeks use the word transmutation, therefore they teach the same thing as Rome." Now, this is not what the Orthodox authors say, so why are we to believe Kimmel+?. The Greeks pray for the dead, therefore they hold the belief in Purgatory (not so, say the Orthodox, for we pray also for the Blessed Virgin--we pray for the growth of all the faithful in this world and the next). The Greeks call Mary "immaculate," but the Orthodox say that this does not mean what it does to Rome. The East shows reverence and veneration to the Eucharistic elements, therefore they are doing the same thing as Rome. The Orthodox will point out that they show such veneration and reverence at all points in the Divine Liturgy, not just during or after the consecration, and the East has no tradition of using the elements outside of the Eucharist (however, to be fair, the Western Rite does practice the "Veneration of the Blessed Sacrament", adopted whole from the benediction of the Anglican Priest's Manual--notice that the designation "veneration" of the Blessed Sacrament allows for other interpretations of the Presence other than that of Aquinas.
Kimmel+ uses arguments and examples that have been rejected by the Orthodox for decades and decades, but he fails to either admit this or realize it. There is still a chasm between East and West, and while Kimmel+ (and many on EWTN) may want to say that it isn't really there, I've seen, read, and heard enough from the Orthodox to say that Kimmel+ is wrong.
Blessings for Advent and Christmastide.
AC+
My more exhaustive reflection on Purgatory can be found here:
http://anglicancleric.blogspot.com/2006/09/purgatory-is-there-anglican-position.html
Post a Comment