Looking at the second verse you quoted I do not think it negates what you were saying in the OP as to me it seems that the "presbyterate" is the one laying on hands not the receiver. I would say, not knowing how to read original languages or anything, that this translation still leaves it open to not being strictly ordination.
Good point. Thanks.
Belle, you are right, but at the ordination of a priest, other priests all gather around and lay on hands with the bishop. (It's quite overwhelming, actually. Even though the hands are light I felt like an immense weight pressing down on me).
The first time I think I really saw pictures of a consecration* of a bishop was when Bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated in 2003. Now, of course, that was controversial for a number of reasons (Well, really just one reason), but the controversy surrounding it is not really relevant to what I'm about to say.
There were about fifty bishops all present at that consecration as co-consecrators. The traditional number is three, to signify consent of other dioceses and also to make sure that if one bishop for whatever reason is not truly in the line of Apostolic Succession, you have two backups, to ensure that a bishop is in fact being consecrated (Because even the presence of one bishop in Apostolic Succession makes the consecration of a new bishop valid. He or she doesn't even have to be the principle consecrator, just a co-consecrator laying on or extending his or her hand). However, it can be done validly with as few as one bishop**, and of course if you have more than three who can make it, it can be done with an unlimited number of bishops.
Anyway, the sense of power and tradition and grace was almost palpable. To see that many successors to the Apostles in one place, all surrounding a priest in a circle and making him a bishop, expressing their united will to through grace consecrate him as one of their number, all at once, together, was just a tremendous thing to see. I think knowing that there was a chain of behind each bishop stretching back 2,000 years to the Apostles, and through the Apostles to Jesus, and that each had had this grace bestowed on them in the same way through all those years was awe-inspiring.
The fact that it was historic because of who was being consecrated and what he represented, added to it somewhat, to see such a strong show of unity by the bishops of his national church, but I think largely the elements that were inspiring could be represent at any number of consecrations. Every day miracles, as it were.
I can only imagine what it must be like to be at the center of that, as a priest being ordained, or a bishop being consecrated. I'm sure that was a really powerful moment.
Do Anglican priests lay down on their bellies with their faces to the ground during part of the ordination mass the way Roman Catholic priests do?
F&B, I think you'll find that those who argue for the elimination of confirmation as a separate rite would wish to do as the Orthodox and bundle it into the baptismal rite. So not that there would be no laying on of hands and prayer for the Spirit, but that these would all happen as one unified rite of initiation.
That would certainly be much better than eliminating it entirely. However, Anglicanism (and the Episcopal Church) is firmly in the western liturgical tradition. In the western tradition, confirmation comes later. Similarly, I don't like the used of leavened bread for communion, which a small minority of Episcopalian parishes use, because even though it is valid as the Greeks use leavened bread, the western tradition is unleavened bread, which is what the majority of Episcopalian parishes use.
Similarly, a criticism I have of modern Roman Catholic practice surrounding the sacraments is that they often have a priest confirm people these days instead of a bishop, at the bishop's permission and direction given for a specific mass. Now, there is an ancient tradition in the east of the priest being the person to bestow confirmation, so it is probably valid in the sense of really bestowing the sacrament, but it is foreign to our liturgical tradition. A bishop should be doing all western rite confirmations, in my opinion. In the Episcopal Church, bishops still do. I wanted to make sure I mentioned that, because I don't want to seem like I am picking on things a minority of Anglicans do or are considering doing (or not doing) liturgically- in fact, Rome has similar issues.
Now, for someone like myself who is very progressive in general terms, it may sound odd that I am so hung up on hewing so closely to liturgical tradition and practice surrounding the sacraments. There's probably a certain humor that people might see in me advocating strong for female and homosexual priests and bishops (and in Roman Catholicism, married priests and bishops), and in advocating that we allow bishops and priests to test the boundaries of theology in various directions, but seeming to draw the line at priests (instead of bishops) confirming babies (instead of a young adults), especially seen it's done that way in the Eastern traditions.
However, I don't see there being any intrinsic connection between me wanting to correct injustices and pushing for a more inclusive affirming tolerant church and pushing to do away with concepts like hell as it's historically been understood, but wanting to keep liturgical traditions the way they are and enjoying high-church ritual with incense and so on and so forth. The changes I push for are not change for the sake of change, but changes for the sake of justice and inclusivity. We've had this great set of liturgical traditions and practices handed down to us, though, and as a person with an appreciation of history and culture, I hate to throw that away.
Actually, I think that's one thing Episcopalians and Anglicans tend to be more likely to get. The idea of a high-church progressive Anglo-Catholic is not that at all foreign to many in those groups. In Rome, where an appreciation of traditional liturgy and such tends to closely associated with conservative theology, and where contemporary and chaotic liturgy and push for liturgical changes tend to be associated with progressives, it leaves a lot of people scratching their heads at me.
But... I also see the value in having a separate rite for those who were baptised as infants. There is something immensely powerful in standing up and claiming this faith for yourself, and it's appropriate that it be accompanied by prayer. I think as long as we baptise infants, we do need something for when the person says for themselves, Yes, I turn to Christ. (Etc).
I agree. And, I think, also, when baptism and confirmation are all one ceremony done on infants (It's more distinct when you have adults do both in one Eucharist, just because of what you are seeing visually, versus a baby who is always in someone's arms), inevitably many are just going to feel they've been to a baptism- and so why the sacrament itself would continue to be conferred, there is a potential catechismical gap to where many people in western churches that adopted the eastern practice of confirmation would not even realize they were in a church that believed in or practiced confirmations. One could argue that this could be overcome if there were a concerted push to have priests preach about confirmation a lot, year after year after year, but I see little to no chance of that really happening and not eventually sort of naturally tailing off to nothing.
And, of course, while the eastern tradition is rich in it's our right (Or should I say "rite"?
), and I wouldn't tell the Eastern Orthodox to change what they do, because it's their ancient tradition, I see the western tradition as being equally strong and important in terms of liturgy and sacramental practice, and part of a culture that's worth preserving. I'm very willing to shake up a culture when there is something *wrong* with it- where people are being oppressed or treated unjustly, where we are threatening people with eternal torment over stupid things that barely seem wrong (Or, to be honest, over anything, in my view); I'm rarely on board with change for the sake of change.
The other thing worth noting is that things taken away rarely seem to get replaced with an equivalent of equal interest. For example, when people strip an altar of paraments, is it because they are going to paint the altar and have rotating artwork behind the altar in accord with the liturgical year? Usually not- it's usually just stripping things away. When some denominations get rid of the traditional liturgical year all together, is it because they are going to replace it with new liturgical colors and seasons they feel are better or more relevant? Never happened in recent history, as far as I can tell, they just make each Sunday like every other Sunday.
If someone wants to have new liturgical seasons with different colors and meanings, and *that's* why they want to do away with the ones we have, I'd actually give that some serious thought. But it seems as though in practice it's always just replacing something with essentially nothing. Eventually everyone is just meeting in what looks like a conference room with a video board and a pastor is vamping for an hour about one part of scriptural, people sing a few songs and say a few impromptu prayers, and then they leave. How is that better than a mass?
I know it's subjective on my part, but I think the Church's greatest asset is it's sense of otherworldliness, which high-church practices and a sacramental emphasis reinforce.
Now, one thing I've never objected to is things like replacing a crucifix with a statue of risen Christ in front of a cross, or cool modern art bulletins and paintings on the walls. I can appreciate changes of style and emphasis, but I really hate when we just strip things away and leave nothing in their place. I don't feel drawn to that at all.
But, of course, that's all largely subjective personal preference on my part.
I will say that if people pushed to replace confirmation with a new, cooler, seventh sacrament, I would likely be less strongly opposed to it than I am just getting rid of confirmation altogether or reemphasizing it and pushing it into infant-hood where a baby is confirmed in the same ceremony where it is baptized. But there is never a cool new sacrament.
It's always just: Here's what we're subtracting.
If people keep subtracting a bunch of things and don't add anything, eventually we're left with nothing. Now, maybe that sounds right in a cool Buddhism Nirvana kind of way, but, in practice, what that means in a Christian church, when what we're talking about getting rid of are liturgical practices and ornamentation and sacramental practices, is far less inspiring.
Footnotes:
* For Roman Catholics who may be reading, I will note here that consecration means the same thing as ordination in this context. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church historically used the term ordination only for priests and deacons, and called what it would today say is the ordination of bishops, consecration of bishops. However, at Vatican II, it decided to standardize on the word "ordain" to refer to all three orders of ministry, presumably in part because one refers to the Eucharist as being consecrated and a priest as being ordained, and one would think making a priest a bishop is more similar to making a deacon a priest than it is to making bread into the Body of Christ. However, Anglicans retained the term consecration for bishop-making, as did traditionalist Catholic spin-off groups like the SSPX. I have no preference as to terminology here, but I use consecration in deference to posting in the Anglican area.
I'd probably say ordain in a Catholic area. Although, really, if I'm not thinking about it, I tend to unconsciously use the term consecration more often than not.
** In the the 19th century encyclical where a Pope claimed Anglican orders were invalid, he tried to cite a consecration that had occurred with the presence of only a non-ordained university professor of theology (or a Dean), a priest, and a bishop listed as co-consecrators to support his point. I to this day don't understand what he thought he was proving there, because in both Anglican and Roman Catholic theology, the presence of the priest and the unordained gentleman is irrelevant so long as the bishop is in fact a bishop. I did not see a specific case in the encyclical that the bishop was not a bishop other than in so far as one might consider him included by default in general categorizations that were made or implied against the validity of Anglican orders.
I suppose the Pope may have been trying to demonstrate an implied belief that a theology expert and a priest could be co-consecrators of a bishop as an issue with sacramental intent (Roman Catholics believe in order to be valid, a sacrament must have valid form, matter, and intent), but he never connects the dots on that one. He made no specific assertion that the individual bishop involved was not validly consecrated himself, so it was really a baffling inclusion in general, because if you have one valid bishop intending to do as the church has done in a valid rite, it creates valid new bishops. There were some criticisms of form in the Pope's encyclical, but they are not persuasive to me. He'd have had a stronger argument had he gone after intent, in my view, but he didn't, and, in any event, I believe Anglican orders are valid anyway- especially when one takes into account that many Anglican bishops were conditionally re-consecrated in secret by Old Catholic bishops in continental Europe after this encyclical. The Old Catholics broke with Rome in the wake of Vatican I, around 1870, over the council's declaration of Papal infallibility (and for other reasons, but I don't think I need to start making footnotes to my footnotes on an Internet forum.
), and initially maintained the same form, matter, and intent to a "t", with actual bishops consecrated in the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century at the beginning of their chains, and so the validity of those consecrations is indisputable, and because of the presence of multiple bishops at some many consecrations, it's thought that those orders are now basically in the chain of something like 99% of the world's Anglican bishops today.
