On Being a Layman
May 17, 2012 15 Comments
(Fr) Chori Jonathin Seraiah who was a Traditional Anglican Communion Priest writes:
When the phone rang I had a couple seconds of fear. I was worried that I was about to hear “I’m sorry to have to bring you some bad news . . . ” Instead he said the words that I have been waiting to hear for a very long time. “Rome has granted your approval for ordination.” My wife was sitting right next to me at the time; first she got an enormous smile, and then she started to cry. The previous few days I had been spending much time in prayer preparing myself in case it had been bad news. There was nothing that I knew of that would have disqualified me, but we were told “there are no promises” and I took that seriously. It was a step of faith wherein we could only rely on God.
This was one of those things that is best understood only after you give it up. Only after I was willing to say, “it is not my choice, and I must be willing to give up anything for the sake of following Christ” could I have a deep appreciation of this wonderful blessing. If we hang on to the things of this world too much (even good and godly things), then we never really appreciate having them. I had never known just how much I felt the inner call to the priesthood until the prospect was on the horizon that it might not be able to serve in that way ever again.
I have been reconciled with the Catholic Church for the last four months. I have been enrolled in the condensed seminary course for the majority of that time. All during that time I have had the ability to experience what it is like to be invisible. When I used to wear a clerical collar as an Anglican priest, there were always the stares; it was, of course, always more unabashed when I had my wife and five children with me. Yet, of late I have been incognito. Wearing ordinary street clothes allows one to hide in the shadows. This gave me the impetus to think about certain things.
As a layman I have noticed that Catholics usually show great respect for their clergy. This is different from what the norm is in many protestant congregations. I have seen protestants who deeply love their pastors; to a point. In other words, they love their pastor until he does something that displeases them. As soon as there is a difference in perspective, then it is common fare for the laity to demonize the offending clergyman. No, this is not a universal practice, but it is common enough where you can generally expect it to occur.
On the other hand, I have seen Catholics who do not really like their priest show him sincere respect. Their attitude seems to be “I may disagree with him, but he’s the priest and I’m not”. Happy to learn from my brothers and sisters, I have appreciated the various examples that they have given me in how this works itself out in the life of a Catholic parish (they likely did not know that I was observing them, but I am thankful for each and every one of them). The consequence for me is that I have had the chance to think about what it means to live like a layman in the Catholic Church just long enough to appreciate the differences.
What I am getting at is that the waiting time that I had to go through has been wonderful. If I had been an Anglican priest on Thursday, a Catholic layman on Friday, a Catholic Deacon on Saturday and a Catholic Priest on Sunday, there would not be the opportunity to feel the difference. This would have taken away the blessing of being “one of the people” in the parish. I know this is somewhat of a crass comparison, but it makes me think of what it must be like for those who are not virgins when they get married; the transition is minimized. I am certainly thankful for the short amount of time that we are being made to endure this wait, but I am also thankful that it was not shorter.
Having found conviction that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is only found in communion with the Holy See is a very comforting experience. To have come to believe this while I was an Anglican priest who was regularly saying the Anglican Mass, I have longed to say Mass as a Catholic priest for a long time. The more my convictions became clear, the more I found it difficult to say the Anglican Mass without discomfort. That meant that I longed to be able to say a Mass that was undoubtedly valid.
This brings me to my final point. During my journey through the morass of Protestantism, I spent very little time in any kind of layman’s role. I believe that I had forgotten a bit of what it meant to be on the other side of the pulpit. I see it better now; much better. This has been a very helpful reminder of what it means to be in the pews. I am about to be ordained as a transitional Deacon in the Catholic Church and incardinated into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, and when that happens it will be the beginning of ministering to God’s people in a way that is similar to, but not precisely like anything I have done before. As things begin to happen over the next few months, I ask that all of you would pray for me and my family; that we would each be good examples of the grace of Christ.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Inspiring, especially that he was baptised Catholic, so he could not have been so sure of the outcome.
Seems that the US Ordinariate will have clergy having ministered in a number of different communities: ECUSA, TAC+ACCC, ACC, CEC (Charismatic Episcopal Church) and possibly others.
Thank you, Fr. Smuts, for finding such brilliant pieces on the web and sharing them with us.
I try…
Blessings.
Most will come from TEC, ACA and ACNA (if we can consider + Iker’s Fort Worth diocese as ACNA… I think it’s a sui juris thingy).
Interestingly, many future ordinariate clergy have not been ordained in the denomination they were incardinated when they laid aside their priestly ministry. Fr. Seraiah for example (Congratulations to him!) was ordained in the Reformed Episcopal Church before going to the ACA. Most ACNA priests, and some ACA, in TEC. But then TEC is at the root of everything Anglican in the US, isn’t it?
+ PAX et BONUM
On that same subject, Fr. Ousley explains here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0l49QBUIB38eG5wZGZsVm5xWkE/edit to his congregation how he has come to accept full ordination in the Catholic Church, and how he regards now his Anglican orders.
+ PAX et BONUM
Although I feel that the discipline of celibacy for all clergy is unscriptural and an unnecessary impediment to the recruitment of competent clergy, it does create a certain magic aura around the priesthood for the average lay Catholic. I wonder if you will notice a difference.
The discipline of clerical celibacy is unscriptural, that is why it is not a Church Law in the Roman Catholic Church, but a traditional discipline. Many other things cannot be found in Scrpiture. Such as the words “Trinity”, “Real Presence”, “Bible”, and “Transusbstantiation.” Yet do we deny that Jesus Christ died a virgin, unblemished, unadulterated, like a pure lamb fit for sacrifice to God almighty? Yes, some of the Apostles had wives. But their obligation to Jesus’ Church does not give them time for anyone, not even themselves. Jesus died a virgin, and the Apostles died celibate; clerical celibacy is justified by Sacred Tradition.
Sts Peter and Andrew were both married man. Their wives remained in their village while they were following Jesus up and down Judea, but afterwards St Peter’s wife followed him in Rome. It is traditional to identify St Petronilla as St Peter’s daughter.
What is certain is that those married apostles and Bishops in early Christian times were both married and celibate (as in “not having conjugal relationships with their wives”). We Latins dismissed the wife, the Easterns dismissed the celibacy-in-marriage obligation.
+ PAX et BONUM
Putting aside tradition for a moment (which I would never do lightly), we are told that St Peter had a mother-in-law who, once healed by Jesus, went about her duties looking after her guests. The question for me was always :”Why isn’t the wife doing this?” One one could reasonably adduce that his wife (as with so many women of the time) had died.
As a celibate myself, I find comfort in the discipline as well as a sacrifice which, whilst no longer a popular idea, is part of sharing in the sacrifices others make so as to be available to them.
Surely living in a family context but abstaining from sex would be the worst of both worlds, if the reasoning was that apostleship “left no time for anyone.” What is the evidence that the married apostles abstained from conjugal relations?
Do you not understand that the Apostles, who traveled extensively, did not live in a “family” context as we know it? Their families would be their brothers, sisters, and children in Christ, in the communities they founded throughout the world, from Spain to India; It is not just “Mean Old Patriarchal Church” saying that the Apostles did not have conjugal relations; it’s a matter of truth that once you become a priest or bishop or any religious, once you become put aside for the service of God, there is no room for asserting what YOU want, and what YOU will. You give your EVERYTHING for God. Considering what God does for us everyday, He’s worth it. That is why the vow of obedience is common, at least in traditional churches, and why “churches” that don’t require them are quick to fall apart. You possibly can’t justify any sort of demand for loyalty when you do not obligate anyone to follow and obey. And loyalty and obedience are the characteristics Our Lord Jesus Christ had that enabled Him to sacrifice Himself for us, and those were the characteristics the Apostles had that enabled them to die horrible deaths under various persecution without recanting or negotiating or compromising what they believed. They died for what they believed because they were right, and if you are a Christian, you would as well, or you’re just playing make-believe just as what many skeptics and atheists propose. Those brave and holy acts of sacrifice make “Oh, but they weren’t allowed to have sex! And that’s lame!” seem like weak and petty whining from oversexed and spoiled teenagers.
Whoa! Did I use the word ‘lame”? No wonder I sounded adolescent. And how did we get from a vow of celibacy to a vow of obedience? I believe that the Anglican ordination service includes a promise of obedience to one’s bishop and other ecclesiastical superiors. My original point was that since Mr Seraiah will not be celibate in any sense when he becomes a Catholic priest, will he be regarded differently by Catholic laypeople. Your own response to the whole issue would suggest that the answer is “yes.”
The vow of canonical obedience to one’s bishop was part of the ordination service well before the Reformation. The difference is, perhaps, that in the Catholic Church it has real meaning. Another relevant difference is the notion of “the parson’s freehold”. It is very much more difficult for a CoE bishop to get an Anglican vicar out of an incumbency than it is for a Catholic bishop to reassign a parish priest from his parish to some other function.
Of course Catholics in the west tend to regard married priests – and their wives – wilth some degree of curiosity. But they very quickly get used to the idea. On his Ancient Richborough blog, Father Edwin Barnes has recently posted about a meeting with the other priests of his pastoral area at his home.
As he puts it: “There was some talk over lunch (Chicken Chorizo, and two Puddings) about the advantage of being a married priest .. I could not possibly comment.”.
From a very practical point of view, I think the purely practical balance of advantage has changed since WW2. Before then one might have had 3 or more priests per parish and there would often have been a convent nearby whose sisters would help. Failing that, it was relatively easy to find a widow of suitably advanced years to act as a housekeeper for the fathers – or at least a “daily” to deal with the domestic chores. That is no longer the case.
Changing social circumstances and the continuing shortage of priests may yet mean that the Church will have to be much readier to dispense with the requirement for celibacy at least for more mature candidates for diocesan holy orders. Not, of course, for monks and friars or for bishops – which might eventually mean an increasing proprtion of the higher clergy being drawn from the monastic houses – as is the case in the Eastern churches.
But the force of tradition is such that I would’t bet on much happening in the next hundred years or so.
I actually like the notion of taking bishops from monastic communities. And yes, to be honest, I welcome the notion of married priests, such as the case with Eastern churches, but it’s so easy to misunderstand the implications of such an arrangement, especially for the laity. It’s also easy to forget that it’s not up to the laity to make any decisions regarding the clergy’s celibacy and marriage status. We can’t just “vote” and submit what basically is our popular opinion on what Church policy ought to be.
Now that I read my posts, they do seem angry. I’m sorry if anyone’s hurt by that. But I promise you, I’m not angry. I just live and worship in an environment where people do theological gymnastics to weasel out of clear-cut commands that require obedience, and call it “Being progressive.” The Roman Catholic Church, at least in the U.S., has a lot of rebellious groups and individuals stating all sorts of questionable things, which makes me emphasize more on the notion of obedience and loyalty to tradition. It’s a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Again, sorry about that.
But I will say that because the Pope allows some priests to be married, then I will -obey- and make no trouble for the married priest and love him as much as the unmarried priest. Where I’m coming from, we have some Roman Catholic priests complaining why the former Anglicans are allowed to have married priests, and I keep thinking about the vows they (The Roman clergy) made to Obedience, (poverty), and chastity. And the entire celibacy thing. I still stand by the notion that a priest stops being his own man because he is given up to God. That’s why even if a priest is married, I doubt that they will be able to have time to fulfill their obligations to their family, if local bishops would keep them busy with assignments. If they do have time for their families, that is very fortunate for them and they should thank the Lord.
It would be completely irresponsible for a bishop to ordain a married man if he (the bishop) felt that the priest or deacon would thereby become unable “to have time to fulfill their obligations to their family.” This would be like ordaining a man who owed a significant sum of money or had other contractual obligations he would be unable to carry out as a priest.