In a theological sense this energy transfer places an "indelible" characteristic upon the soul or spirit of the individual being ordained, that is a characteristic that cannot be removed. This alteration, conducted sacramentally, is similar to the sacraments of baptism and confirmation because it changes who you become after the ordination takes place. For those individuals who subscribe to the idea of reincarnation I would even hypothesize that the indelible characteristic of ordination is passed onto subsequent incarnations, and because of this a level of responsibility needs to be acknowledged by the potential ordinand. Things to consider:
- Do I accept this ordination/consecration forever in this lifetime?
- Do I accept this ordination/consecration forever for all subsequent lifetimes?
Something else to consider is the person who is ordaining or consecrating you. The originator of the priesthood/episcopacy is Jesus Christ, however, when an ordination or consecration is conducted those individuals within the succession are also passing something of themselves onto the new ordinand, and this is an important consideration. Things to consider:
- Is the person who is about to ordain/consecrate me a person with whom I would normally be "in communion" with?
- How do I view the person ordaining/consecrating me? Do I respect them?
- Would I ordain/consecrate the person who is ordaining/consecrating me if the situation where reversed?
Again, something else to consider is how you plan on coping with the changes that will take place after an ordination or consecration. Instead of looking at this energy exchange as, "I'm a new priest," or "I'm a new bishop," think of it as now being a priestly initiate or episcopal initiate into the sacred mysteries of the priesthood and episcopate. The essence of the priesthood and episcopate is mystical in nature, and NOT administrative or jurisdictional -- these are constructs resulting from the priesthood and episcopacy and not directly linked to the mystery of the sacrament. The mystery of the sacrament is about the sacraments themselves, and not about anything else. All too often I have seen bishops within the Sacramental Movement focus their attention on the jurisdictional or administrative side of episcopacy, but this is not what the sacramental initiation of consecration is about -- it is about the fullness of priestly initiation and the fullness of the sacraments. Things to consider before ordination and consecration:
- What was my life like before ordination/consecration?
- Am I equipped to deal with a major change in my life?
- Am I ready to deal with the added responsibility that this change will bring upon me?
- How has my life changed since ordination/consecration?
- Do I find myself depressed? What will I do about this depression?
- What is my support network, do they understand ordination/consecration? Do they support my decision? What sort of support do I have from other priests and/or bishops?
As a final note I want to also point out that consecration is not about wearing purple, wearing a mitre, or other episcopal regalia. All these items are externals and not absolutely necessary for administering the sacraments. Please ask yourself, "Do I fantasize more about wearing a mitre than imagining myself as a apostolic representative of Christ?" The deep responsibility of ordination and consecration far outweighs any sort of external or "episcopal privilege."
One more point to consider. In the Sacramental Christian Movement (also known as the Independent Sacramental Movement) the idea of jurisdiction is a construction of our modern sensibilities. It is simply absurd to think "if I create it they will come." Jurisdictions (i.e., new "denominations") are created almost every day, and they also die everyday. What exists is the episcopacy, the priesthood, and the deaconate. Until there is a renaissance within the sacramental movement and circumstances radically change the situation will be as it is now, which is very fluid. If a priest doesn't like his bishop he or she will simply go someplace else. If a bishop is unhappy with her fellow bishops she will create her own jurisdiction. This is the nature of this movement. It is unfortunate that it is this way, but this is simply the nature of the movement. This is why I view consecration and ordination as an initiatory experience and not simply as admission into a jurisdiction clergy roles. The apostolic succession sees through any jurisdictional lines and does not recognize "clergy roles" or "jurisdictional canon law." It acknowledges only correct "matter and form."



12 comments:
David,
This is such a good post, with many excellent questions to consider - whether one is looking toward ordination/consecration, or looking back in consideration of how life has moved since then. I especially appreciated this statement:
"The essence of the priesthood and episcopate is mystical in nature, and NOT administrative or jurisdictional -- these are constructs resulting from the priesthood and episcopacy and not directly linked to the mystery of the sacrament."
Amen to that.
I'm not sure that the very fluid nature of the movement is unfortunate. I absolutely agree that the way in which this fluidity becomes an arena for ego-craziness ("I must form my own church and be the pope of my six best friends!") is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I think that, if approached more humbly, the fluid nature of these Sacramental Christian mysteries (in terms of their outer, institutional forms) contains great positive potential. We can give up the ambition of being micro-popes and accept the reality of the situation, trying to see how the Spirit is moving. As my friend Jim likes to say, we carry the mystery of "church" with us, like a turtle carries its shell, wherever life takes us.
How to approach ecclesiology from our present sacramental christian location seems to me to be a crucial theological task before our movement.
Thanks!
John
John:
I'm not sure that the very fluid nature of the movement is unfortunate.
Oh, I am in agreement with you. But it seems that there are folks out there who have their expectations thrashed upon when they assume the sacramental movement is just a microcosm, or smaller version, of the more mainstream sacramental churches.
As my friend Jim likes to say, we carry the mystery of "church" with us, like a turtle carries its shell, wherever life takes us.
Exactly. A priestly vocation is something you can manifest in the most obscure surroundings, and in many different ways.
David
"But it seems that there are folks out there who have their expectations thrashed upon when they assume the sacramental movement is just a microcosm, or smaller version, of the more mainstream sacramental churches."
Yes, exactly. Many of us have a quite different way of being church, and that seems to be one of the hardest things for people to "get."
Yes, exactly. Many of us have a quite different way of being church, and that seems to be one of the hardest things for people to "get."
If you "get it" then you couldn't in good conscious become the 'pope' to your six (or four) friends. Therefore, I think some people prefer not to "get it."
Wow! Great post - and the comments thus far too I found myself nodding and mumbling "Amen" (grin)
One thing I still can't get my head around (I'm blaming my Eastern mind for it) and its the idea of "matter and form" as you put it David and I've heard it elsewhere as "form and intent" (I'm going on the assumption that they are similar or the same ideas). If we accept that sacrament is mystery, then the means by which the sacrament happens must also be mysterious - when we begin to say that the sacrament is passed/constituted only when there is correct "form" and "intent/matter" are we then not attempting to hemm the mystery?
It's an awkward thing I know because there ought to be a point at which those present/encountered can observe/sense (and therefore with some degree of confidence "state" that it was unlikely that the sacrament was truly constituted in a given situation/condition. I have always personally struggled with identifying what that is. What is more - falling back on the point both you & Johm made about jurisdiction(alism) - is not the very idea of form and intent rooted in this problem?
One thing I still can't get my head around ... and its the idea of "matter and form"...
What is implied by "matter & from" is the idea that certain items are used in a sacrament and a certain form is used. For example, water is the matter of baptism and not (lets say) milk, beer, etc... Likewise, a human being is the matter of holy orders -- not sure it would be valid if you ordained your dog (although my beagle, Rev. Rusty, might enjoy such a thing). Intention is implied in "form," and the ritual prescription of the sacrament. I would question the validity of a Eucharist were the "form" was "Here it is, dig in!" Even if there was an intention to consecrate the bread and wine, "Here it is, dig in!" doesn't seem like correct form to me.
It is no surprise that I'm pretty liberal on my take of "matter and form," but I still have a sense of what I feel is the correct usage. I don't think the mystery of a sacrament is impeded by the notion of matter and form, it is simply understood that there are essentials to each sacrament that make that sacrament that sacrament. I am certainly accepting of both male and female ordination and consecration, but as I mentioned above I'm not convinced that it would be valid or acceptable to ordain an animal. Having basic parameters for the conducting of sacraments doesn't, I believe, take aware from the mystery but can actually add to that mystery when understood.
I hope I made at least some sense :)
It did yes - sorry perhaps I was not very clear - I understand that aspect of it (and there's lots of wonderful conversation to be had there too) what I don't get is the. . . . "legalism" often expressed in OC/IC contexts regarding matter & form.
What is more when I've heard it in other contexts (never before as much as I do in the UK for some reason) it appears to be used either as a weapon against others, or as a talisman to protect the speaker - almost as though a ritual, disconnected from the expression of a charism, or vocation, will somehow magically "make" one a priest or bishop.
"legalism" often expressed in OC/IC contexts regarding matter & form.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I have seen legalism more in the realm of "valid vs. legal," rather than in the argument of matter and form. I have seen validity arguments used to make claims that some sacraments were valid and some were not -- such seems to have originated with Leo XIII and his claim that Anglican Orders were invalid. I also saw a lot of "valid vs. legal" arguments used when I was a Catholic traditionalist -- arguments that "Novus Ordo" masses are invalid for example.
Perhaps you could share an example of what you are referring, so I can understand you better and to make sure we are on the same page.
he he he . . . you mention the Anglican Orders issue - funny last night when I posted I deleted a similar comment.
It seems that the matter & form issue is very much about validity as you say. When I've heard it used, and again more here in the UK than in the US. It was often done pointing to (directly or indirectly) the matter of Anglican Orders.
I have to giggle a bit here because it was their concern for the validity of their orders that first brought Old Catholicism to the US!
An example that comes to mind is an occasion when it was explained to me that a bishop over here would often ordain someone, then when that person fell out of favour, or was forced out of the community, said bishop would announce that the ordination/consecration was naturally invalid because he did not have the "intention" of ordaining/consecrating the person. Here its used as a weapon of control.
Likewise I've witnessed it being used as a weapon of superiority - that is to say that if someone wanted to join/incardinate community X that the bishop would insist on "re-ordaining" them - the claim being - and again this, in my experience appears to be largely something happening here in the UK - that because the "form" or ritual was not the approved "form" of Bishop X both the other bishop (and his/her community, and the candidate seeking to join/fellowship are "naturally" invalid.
Form and intent - seem to have run amok in our ISM context with two results - its used as a weapon, and it leads to an unhealthy emphasis on ritual - in effect draining the life out of the rites of those communities affected.
As a related aside I have often thought that many in our ISM context have fallen victim to the over-concern for "form" borne out of our historic connection with LCC (and their connection with 19th century Anglo-Catholicism). In my experience both here in the UK and in the US those who heavily use the form and intent language - are also heavily influenced by Leadbetter's (sp?) thinking.
Though I don't use the "form/matter" or "form/intent" language I do understand, as we've both pointed out that there is a point at which one says - no, the sacrament did not happen.
I wonder - when there is so much emphasis on "form" - is this not cause to wonder if the sacrament is realised? I can think of any number of examples in the Gospels where Jesus taught this point - when you focus on the form, you loose sight of the value of the rite itself, once that's gone, how can there be "right intent" - and so how can the sacrament be realised?
The only way to recognise this, I think is to both be well informed about the custom and tradition in which one is working, AND to be actively engaged in the life of the community - this way there is a wider witenss and discernment happening that simply cannot be when it is one individual making the rule/determination by fiat - and thus using a well founded concept as a weapon against, or means of causing suffering for others.
David,
I just recently stumbled on to your blog from the comment section of a different blog.
You have a lot of good material here. It might take me some time to get to reading all of it.
Keep up the good writing.
Pax Pleromae,
Rev. Mother Marsha+
You have a lot of good material here.
Thanks!
It might take me some time to get to reading all of it. Keep up the good writing.
Take your time, and BTW... I love comments.
David, thanks so much for communicating with me. Naturally I'd like to know more about your dialogue with the AJC to date.
I make no assumptions about what happened, but I'd like to hear your perceptions.
pax et lux
Rev. Ms. Juliana
AJC
San Francisco14866jcc
Post a Comment