Albany Via Media

May 7, 2010

To the Editor:

Apparently, some influential theologians in the Anglican Communion do not believe in the indelibility of orders. At least, that's the way I read a document that was presented at the last Lambeth Conference. I'm surprised it hasn't attracted more comment.

“Indelibility of orders” means that a deacon, priest, or bishop, once ordained or consecrated, remains a deacon, priest, or bishop for life, regardless of whether or not the cleric is inhibited, suspended, deposed, or “defrocked” from exercise of the ministry. For example, such a priest may still administer absolution to someone at the point of death. This is basically equivalent to the position of the Roman Catholic Church regarding their own orders. (See The Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 1581 through 1584.)

There is an International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue. In 2006 the commission publishedThe Cyprus Agreed Statement of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue 2006, “The Church of the Triune God”. The Preface was signed by the co-chairmen, Bishops Mark Dyer and John of Pergamon. The Preface says "this report … carries only the authority of its members, …." It is a sizable document, and I haven't read the whole thing, but buried in it (pages 47 and 48, paragraphs (VI) 22 and (VI) 23) I found the following (edited here for length):

“Bishops and presbyters do not possess an indelible mark as if ordination were a magical seal granting them personal power to celebrate the Eucharist or any other liturgical action, apart from the ecclesial body. … Any notion of ‘indelible mark’ would imply that the ordained individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood, which can never in any circumstance be removed or surrendered… the Church cannot remove the indelible mark even if those ordained relinquish the exercise of their ministries, or are deprived of them, or even excommunicated… We are not aware that the theory of an indelible mark conferred by ordination can be found in patristic teaching. On the contrary,… once the Church decided to depose a bishop or presbyter, they returned to the rank of layman. Those deposed or excommunicated were in no way considered to retain their priesthood. The fact that the ministerial rehabilitation and restoration of such persons did not... involve re-ordination... does not imply any recognition that they were bishops or priests during the period of such punishment. It meant only that the Church recognised what had been sacramentally performed.”

Of course, this may be a distinction without a difference. But I'd like to know what the position of the Anglican Communion is on this question. Can anyone tell me?

Allison de Kanel

P.S. A recent conversation with a friend convinced me that my most recent letter to AVM on this subject wasn't clear, probably due to its length. I will place the earlier letter on my blog, Outside the Box.