Tonight a friend, Diane, will be ordained a Priest in the Episcopal Church. An Episcopal Bishop will place his hands on her head and other ordained Priests will crowd around her and place their hands on her at the same time. It is a very moving ritual, tracing its elements to ancient traditions of the Church, particularly those in the catholic tradition. The Episcopal Church is a faith community of the larger Anglican Communion which severed its political ties to the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, but continues many of the traditions and practices of its origins in Roman Catholicism.
Obviously, the tradition of ordination of women to the priesthood is of more recent origin, but the form and design of the ordination is basically unchanged. It concludes by the new Priest offering the sacramental blessing of the gathered congregation for the first time. That signals the onset of numerous actions of ordination that were not available to her prior to the ordination. And it is those actions which help describe what we mean when we refer to her as a Priest.
Some traditions refer to their ordained clergy as “ministers” … and there are some in the Episcopal Church who continue that designation. But technically all persons in the Church are ministers, each having a function of ministry, whether it be musical, educational, administrative, pastoral, or other. Ordained clergy have a specific ministry, however, and in the Episcopal Church that ministry is to administer the Sacraments of the Church. Those include the rites of baptism, celebration of Holy Communion, reconciliation of a penitent (confession), unction/healing, matrimony, confirmation, and ordination. Others have roles in these sacramental actions, but the Priest has the unique role of celebrant.
It’s not a magical thing, such as some special power invested in Priests that changes wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ in the celebration of Holy Communion. It has more to do with Order, the stabilizing of a tradition retaining an ancient practice. The goal of the Church is to celebrate the sacraments from the first century when they were instituted and to do it with as much historical accuracy as possible. Therefore, the Priest as officiant is a continuing tradition. Others, such as an ordained Deacon, may be designated by a Priest or Bishop as officiant for special causes, but the Priest is still seen as the chief officiant. The exception in Holy Communion, known as the Holy Eucharist, where only a Priest or Bishop may officiate.
In other than the sacramental functions of a Priest, (her) functions of ministry are the same as those of other traditions, and may include parish administration, counseling, teaching, social ministry, music, or other functions of Church life. Some Priests may be chosen to become Bishops, with the specific ministry of administering the larger body of the Church, a Diocese.
All that being said, what will happen tonight will be historical in form, but very, very personal in tone. My friend will be surrounded by friends and colleagues who support her and welcome her into this new aspect of her life. There will be joyous music, poignant words of charge to her by a preacher she has selected, gifts from those in attendance, and … of course … food and drink to celebrate the occasion.
She will receive a stole, a festive scarf symbolic of priesthood, which will be placed around her neck as a sign of service. It represents a yoke, reminding her of the task of carrying a difficult burden bestowed upon her by a grateful Church and blessed by an ancient Church which looks to her for leadership, wisdom and compassion.
Photo Credit: Cindy Brown Photos
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh, heck, I don’t decry Whitehead’s knowledge but he speaks of course from a very Roman position. I think that (as he implies) the Anglican (and, incidentally, Orthodox) view is that there is a very distinct differentiation to be made between the Universal Church and the RC church, and that Anglican origins are in the former rather than the latter. Whitehead, of course, believes that the church of Rome is identical to the Universal Church, and that therefore both Anglicans and Orthodox are mere splinters from it.
Thanks again, Picky, for your comment. I stand corrected. A primary reference tool, an article by Whitehead says: “So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.” Other resources disagree and use the term historically back to 380 A.D. when Christianity became the official faith of the Roman Empire. But I thought Whitehead’s scholarship was authoritative. Forgive my Anglican bias.
I’m certainly not theologian enough to discuss differences between priest, presbyter and minister. But I shall if you allow nitpick a small point in your post.
I read not long ago an RC response to a CofE consultation paper, in which the RC side described the CofE as having its roots in the Reformation. The CofE wouldn’t let this pass, but responded that on the contrary it was the continuing church of this country, and its roots were a thousand years and more before the Reformation. Familiar spat.
I think the CofE might take similar exception to your statement that Anglicanism had its origins in the Roman Catholic church (although I understand what you mean, of course). In fact its origins were much earlier – there was an episcopal church here when St Augustine of Canterbury landed, and presumably it had been in place since the time of St Alban in the third century, if not before. At that time it was part of the Universal Church, as was the see of Rome, whereas the Roman Catholic church can hardly be said to have existed before the Great Schism of the 11th century. So, although the English church was part of Roman Catholicism for 500 years, its origins were 800 or so years earlier.
(End of nitpick.)