(Up to Letters)
June 2, 2010
To the Editor:
Fr. Hartt's most recent letter on the indelibility of orders continues the discussion by noting that there are apparently four possible views about the indelibility of holy orders:
- Holy orders are not indelible and can be given and taken away by the Church.
- Holy orders are not indelible and cannot be taken away by the Church.
- Holy orders are indelible but one can be deprived of lawful exercise by the Church.
- Holy orders are indelible and cannot be taken away by the Church.
He states that our tradition is number 3, and that he agrees with this view.
Fr. Hartt goes on to ask “Who is the Church?” — What is the Church that has the authority to give and take away the authority to exercise orders? Is that Church The Episcopal Church, or is it the Anglican Communion as a whole? If it is the Anglican Communion, then the legitimacy of our orders depends on our relationship with the rest of the Communion. Should The Episcopal Church “walk away” from the communion, we will lose the ability to claim genuinely Catholic orders such as are shared by the Communion as a whole.
I hope Fr. Hartt will correct me if I have mistated his argument.
In response to the question about the definition of “Church” I suppose we could look at The Anglican Communion Covenant, as proposed. It refers repeatedly to the Churches of the Anglican Communion. In fact, the Preface begins, “We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments.” Sections then follow that state “each Church affirms” or “each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself...” It seems that the Anglican Communion is not a Church, but is composed of Churches, such as our own, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I'd like to return to the point of my original letter on this subject. The Anglican theologians who are members of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue appear to agree with position number 1, not with position number 3. If it were not for the preface of their report, which states that “this report … carries only the authority of its members, … .”, I would have concluded that the tradition of The Anglican Communion — our tradition — is officially number 1, not number 3, and that therefore Holy Orders in the Anglican Communion and in The Episcopal Church are not indelible.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently proposed that membership on committees such as the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue be restricted to members of provinces that have not violated any of the moratoria defined in the Windsor Report. He fears that such members from provinces that have violated the moratoria will not be able to credibly represent the mind of the Communion as a whole. At this point, I have to wonder (with the greatest respect for the bishops and theologians who are currently members) if the Commission as presently constituted represents the mind of the Communion as a whole. If it does, then the Communion as a whole seems to be in disagreement with what Fr. Hartt and I consider to be our tradition.
Perhaps Fr. Hartt and I will be able to continue this discussion at Diocesan Convention …
Allison de Kanel
(Up to Letters)