THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence of ... - Rore Sanctifica

More documents

Recommendations

Info

have separated Catholics and Protestants since the Reformation? The reader might find it helpful here to refer to the summary of Protestant belief contained in Chapter II. Protestants teach that ordination is not a Sacrament but simply the public authorization for a person to exercise a function within the Church, namely teaching the Word of God and administering the Sacraments. It is a matter of propriety though not of necessity that only ordained persons should fulfill these functions, but in an emergency they could be discharged by anyone of the faithful. Can the Canterbury Statement be reconciled with these Reformation axioms? Dr. Charley most certainly concludes that it can. He explains that an ordained minister is . . . the most appropriate person to preside at the celebration of the Eucharist. The Statement says nothing about a "priestly character" necessary for such a responsibility, by which an ordained man is empowered to do something which no layman can do. It speaks rather of what is right in the light of the nature of both the Eucharist and the ministry. The Lord's people gather together around the Lord's table. If the minister is the focus of the people's unity, who could be more fitting to act as president? It was this realization that undoubtedly accounts for the early confining of this task to the one who exercised oversight in the Christian community. The New Testament itself tells us nothing about who should preside (p. 21). When asked whether this meant that if no ordained minister was available a layman could act as celebrant he replied, "I can find, if I am honest, no ultimate theological reason why in exceptional circumstances a layman could not be the celebrant." Paramount among the reasons which prompted Pope Leo XIII to pronounce Anglican Orders invalid was the systematic elimination of every reference to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from Cranmer's Communion and Ordination rites. This is a fact which I have documented in very great detail in Cranmer's Godly Order and will not repeat here. The Reformers were prepared to accept that the Eucharist was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and nothing more. Is the Statement compatible with Protestant teaching? Dr. Charley writes: Any suggestion of the sacrifice of Christ being somehow continued in Heaven and represented by priests at altars on earth is positively excluded. Here there is reiterated and elucidated what was said in the Commission's former statement on the Eucharist (The Windsor Agreement). Priestly language to describe the presiding minister must never be allowed to obscure the fact. Referring to the Windsor Agreement, Dr. Charley explains: The Statement on the Eucharist claimed to be a "substantial agreement" from which, according to the Chairmen in the Preface, "nothing essential has been omitted". That Statement spoke explicitly of the sacrifice of Christ, but it never described the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Even a "substantial agreement" did not require that. This present Statement on the ministry is "the consensus of the Commission on essential matters" (para. 17). There is a straight acknowledgment of the absence from the New Testament of priestly epithets for the ministry. Why this terminology was accepted later among Christians is explored very carefully. No claim is made for the ministry of a priestly role derived from Christ, for His High Priesthood is unique. There is no suggestion of a continuance or repetition of His priestly sacrifice, for what He did was unique and unrepeatable. All that is said is that the priestly role of Christ is "reflected" in the presiding minister, which is a very different matter. Put the substance of all these facts together, taken from two agreements claiming to include all essentials, and you have a very notable result (p. 23). The Council of Trent took great pains to make it clear that the forgiveness of sins when absolution is pronounced by a duly authorized priest is a real judicial pardon. It is not simply a statement of fact, namely that God has forgiven the sins of the penitent. Although the priest is dispensing God's
ounty, sins are forgiven in virtue of the words of absolution which he pronounces "after the manner of a judicial act by which the sentence is pronounced by him as by a judge" (D. 919). The essential fact here is that the priest also has the power to refuse absolution, to retain the sins of the penitent. The teaching of Trent was in opposition to the practice of some Reformers who preserved a rite resembling the Catholic Sacrament of Penance in which, when the minister pronounced forgiveness of the penitent's sins, he was simply reminding him that his sins had been forgiven through the merits of Christ; there was no question of a power exercised by the minister in virtue of the Sacrament of Order. To quote Calvin: It not seldom happens that he who hears general promises which are intended for the whole congregation of the faithful, nevertheless remains somewhat in doubt and is still disquieted in his mind, as if his own remission were not yet obtained. Should this individual lay open the secret wound of his soul to his pastor, and hear these words of the Gospel, "Son be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven thee," his mind will feel secure and escape from the trepidation with which it was previously agitated. 4 Cranmer, along with Latimer and Jewel, did not believe that the presbyter possessed any special power to absolve sin. 5 The clear teaching of the Catholic Church is that in the Sacrament of Penance a duly authorized priest has the power to remit or retain the sins of the penitent, and not simply state that God has forgiven him. This teaching was reiterated in the documents of Vatican II and by the 1971 Synod of Bishops. 6 The Canterbury statement claims: Authority to pronounce God's forgiveness of sin, given to bishops and presbyters at their ordination, is exercised by them to bring Christians to a closer communion with God and their fellow men through Christ and to assure them of God's continuing love and mercy. It will be noted that this is the Protestant concept of ordination as the authority to exercise an office, as opposed to the Catholic teaching that it confers powers not possessed by the unordained. It will also be noted that the Statement does no more than repeat the Protestant teaching that a minister is empowered to pronounce the fact that God has forgiven the sins of the penitent. Dr. Charley comments: Similarly, with this context in mind, "the authority to pronounce God's forgiveness of sin" (para. 11) should not be open to misconstruction. The relationship of such a ministry with the word of God is fundamental. The forgiveness is God's, not ours, for sin is primarily an offence against God Who alone therefore can offer pardon. As in the Anglican Prayer Book, where the Absolution is either a prayer to God or a statement about God, so here the minister is simply said to "pronounce" it. This is based upon the authority given by Jesus to his first disciples (Mt. 18:18; Jn. 20:23). Absolution is an extension of the ministry of the word (p. 21). Vatican II follows Trent in teaching that the Sacrament of Order in the Catholic Church is of Divine institution. Our Lord made His Apostles priests of the New Testament at the Last Supper. The powers He gave them were permanent and meant to be transmitted to their successors by the laying on of hands. This power was to continue without interruption, and has indeed been handed down without a break to our present-day bishops, who are the lawful successors of the Apostles in the Church which is a hierarchically structured society. 7 Every proposition listed here is de fide teaching, and if the Church should ever accept that she has been wrong in even one of these propositions then her entire history and witness would be meaningless. It would, in fact, be a straightforward admission that there is no Catholic Church. Not one of these propositions is affirmed in the Statement. Some are even openly denied. What it states
Page 1 and 2: THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence
Page 3 and 4: THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence
Page 5 and 6: In a gesture of scarcely credible a
Page 7 and 8: the sacramental significance and va
Page 9 and 10: The 1991 Vatican Response to ARCIC
Page 11 and 12: of those ordained each year. I wish
Page 13 and 14: as the same distinction (of a twofo
Page 15 and 16: 1. CCT, p. 330. Among the scriptura
Page 17 and 18: probably come as close as is possib
Page 19 and 20: Ordination, published in 1973 by th
Page 21 and 22: Chapter III New Ideas and Old Mista
Page 23 and 24: The situation described by Chestert
Page 25 and 26: vain; in vain, too, the coming of t
Page 27 and 28: Chapter IV Anglican Orders------Abs
Page 29 and 30: September 1555. The relevant sectio
Page 31 and 32: possible investigation. The origina
Page 33 and 34: operative words of the form do not
Page 35 and 36: Any words in the Anglican Ordinal,
Page 37 and 38: communion, we can know with infalli
Page 39 and 40: 13. CCAO, p. 8. 14. CCAO, pp. 24-28
Page 41 and 42: publications. Father Yarnold summar
Page 43 and 44: the word and the sacraments to othe
Page 45 and 46: Chapter VI Agreement on the Ministr
Page 47: The Agreed Statement makes Apostoli
Page 51 and 52: acceptable form of Church order. Th
Page 53 and 54: Chapter VII The New Catholic Rite o
Page 55 and 56: The most objective manner of compar
Page 57 and 58: likens them to Christ the Priest; t
Page 59 and 60: The question it poses is whether a
Page 61 and 62: ishops in any other country had bee
Page 63 and 64: The offering of the bread and wine
Page 65 and 66: Sacramentum Ordinis (see Chap. VII)
Page 67 and 68: Chapter IX Towards a Common Ordinal
Page 69 and 70: A priest is ordained within the his
Page 71 and 72: anything more than an appointment b
Page 73 and 74: Chapter X Blurring the Priesthood O
Page 75 and 76: XII, that most percipient of popes.
Page 77 and 78: Appendix I The Substance of a Sacra
Page 79 and 80: Pope Pius XII thus taught conclusiv
Page 81 and 82: Appendix II Ministerial Intention T
Page 83 and 84: intention is not necessary for the
Page 85 and 86: Observers, Canon Ronald Jasper. Bef
Page 87 and 88: is the way the Modernist mind opera
Page 89 and 90: office occurs as it was laid down a
Page 91 and 92: 6. Infallible? (London, 1972), pp.
Page 93 and 94: 1. For a more detailed treatment of
Page 95 and 96: Metropolitan Churches from the hand
Page 97 and 98: Church-----even though the said bis
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix VII Sacrifice and Priestho
Page 101 and 102:
ecall the Old Testament from which
Page 103 and 104:
590 when he was elected Peter's suc
Page 105 and 106:
oportet) that there is in that Chur
Page 107 and 108:
In these documents we meet always t
Page 109 and 110:
Catholics to what they saw correctl
Page 111 and 112:
international commission, clutching
Page 113 and 114:
priestly ordination is central to t
Page 115 and 116:
It seems somewhat unfair of Dr. Car
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix IX The Revised Ordinal of
Page 119 and 120:
The most evident manner of overcomi
Page 121 and 122:
The Examination of the Candidate Th
Page 123 and 124:
priest could have been made clear b
Page 125 and 126:
Novissime vero Last of all, holy Fa
Page 127 and 128:
Sic nationem so that all nations ga
Page 129 and 130:
of the New Mass can be found. It is
Page 131 and 132:
Mass.
Page 133 and 134:
Communion is concerned, the norm fo
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix XI The Form for the Ordina
Page 137:
composed. In the new rite for the o
show all

THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDECH A Defence of ... - Rore Sanctifica

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?