Reginal Cardinal Pole, lay minister

Reginald Pole was definitely pushing the boundaries of lay ministry. Of course, he represents a different era when such things were not quite as unusual. He was on an ordination track, you night say. And Pole was appointed to several benefices (an office of clergy which carried with it a living, i.e., salary) before his ordination.

He was appointed as a lay canon of Salisbury and York and lay Dean of Exeter Cathedral in 1529 when he represented King Henry VIII in Paris, persuading the theologians of the Sorbonne to support Henry's annulment from Catherine of Aragon. He broke with Henry in 1536 on the issue of the annulment and was made a Cardinal and Papal Legate to England by Pope Paul III in 1537.

In 1542 he was appointed as one of the three Papal Legates to preside over the Council of Trent, which began in 1545. After the death of Pope Paul III in 1549 Pole, at one point, had nearly the two-thirds of the vote he needed to become Pope himself at the papal conclave of 1549-1550. His personal belief in justification by faith over works had caused him problems at Trent and accusations of heresy at the conclave. Pole returned to England in 1554 as Papal Legate.

POLE WAS FINALLY ORDAINED a priest on 20 March 1556 was and consecrated and enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury two days later. He served in that office until his death in 1558.

Let's review here: starting in 1518, as a layman, he was a pastor on the staffs of large churches, then he was a lay cardinal (and nearly pope), then he served as Papal Legate in England which required him to sit in judgment on priests and bishops in order to restore papal catholicism in England. At last, after 38 years of official lay ministry, he was ordained and concluded his life with two years as Archbishop of Canterbury. A little out of order?

That's why they call it 'matrimony'

This afternoon, I was looking up something in my handy 'Pocket Catholic Dictionary' by John Hardon (an excellent resource, btw). As I was thumbing through the pages, my eye caught the entry "Consummated Marriage." It aroused my interest, so I took a peak. The brief definition concluded by noting, "Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage."

It surprised me a little, either because this was a detail I had forgotten or one I never learned in the first place. But after giving it a moment's thought, it not only made sense, but even seemed amazing that I could have ever been ignorant of something so obvious. After all, that's why they call it "matrimony." It's about making a woman into a mother.

"Individuals can leave this church"?

In light of the recent charges made against nine bishops of the Episcopal Church for attaching their names to an amicus brief explaining the polity of the Episcopal Church, I thought I would post this email exchange I had with a parish in the Diocese of Dallas over a member transfer last year. (Names have been changed.)

When parishes and dioceses began leaving the Episcopal Church in the last several years, the mantra we heard from TEC leadership was, "Individuals can leave this church, but parishes and dioceses cannot." But according to a parish in the Diocese of Dallas, individuals cannot leave either. There is no way out.

Subject: membership transfer

To whom it may concern: 

I have not yet received a response about the requested transfer of membership for Jane Doe (see attached letter). Please send it to my attention (The Rev'd Timothy Matkin, Trinity Episcopal Church, PO Box 387, Dublin TX 76446). Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Father Timothy Matkin 

________________________________________

Subject: RE: membership transfer 

Dear Fr. Matkin, 

After speaking with my Rector, I am unable to assist you with this transfer as Trinity is no longer in communion with the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. 

Sincerely, Mrs. Y

Parish Coordinator Episcopal Church of the XXXXX

________________________________________ 

Subject: Re: membership transfer 

Dear Mrs. Y, 

Thank you for checking on this, but I think you have been misinformed. We are currently a congregation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (thus, in communion with our diocese and bishop) and we have been since its founding in 1982. And we were a part of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas before that since it's founding in 1895, Bishop Garrett having organized Trinity Church in 1884. 

Even though the Fort Worth diocese dissolved its union with the General Convention in 2008, our communion relationships have not changed. We are still full constituent members of a province of the Anglican Communion, we still have our companion relationships with two dioceses in the Anglican Communion, we still share a number of ministries with the Diocese of Dallas, such as the Renewal Center. I have celebrated the Eucharist in Episcopal churches in Dallas three times since 2008, and served as clergy at a Happening in the Diocese of Dallas last year. I have received three transfers of members this year from two Episcopal Church dioceses--Texas and West Texas. 

That being said, it really doesn't matter anyway. This is a matter of record keeping and paperwork, not a test of conscience. We are not asking your Rector to take a position on any controversial issues of the day, only to certify that your parishioner Jane Doe is a baptized member, her date confirmation, etc., and to remove her from your membership roles. In return, we will certify to you that she has been added to ours. You might want to review Canon I.17.4 on the transfer of members between congregations. The section falls under the canon on the rights of the laity. Jane is entitled to this right under law as a member of your church. You will notice that the canon does not discriminate as to what ecclesiastical entity she is moving her membership to. It only states that the lay person concerned is seeking to be "enrolled in another congregation of this [i.e., TEC] or another Church." 

The form you were sent is simply for the sake of convenience. If you prefer to go through the formality of having her contact you to for a formal certificate and you having to type one up, so be it. Jane has become a valued part of our Trinity family, and I insist that her rights under canon law be honored. You will note that the relevant section concludes, "(d) Any communicant of any Church in communion with this Church shall be entitled to the benefit of this section..." As a parish of the Episcopal Church, I'm sure you will honor the canons and your own parishioner by respecting Jane's rights in this matter. 

I appreciate you attending to this matter promptly, and I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 

Father Timothy Matkin 

________________________________________ 

Subject: Jane Doe 

Father Timothy Matkin: 

I am delighted that Jane Doe has found a church home in your parish and even more pleased that you value her membership, she is a lovely lady and I pray God’s blessing upon her and your church family. 

The point is we are an Episcopal Church and you are not in spite of the sleight of hand action your leadership has carried out and therefore a canonical transfer is not possible – period. This happened when your Bishop and Convention voted to revoke it’s relationship with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, USA. 

By saying this I in no means am suggesting you are a cad, a villain or an imposter to catholic order – you just aren’t an Episcopalian. In fact I am sure you are a fine person and priest and that you pastor a lovely church family. What I am happy to do is to commend Jane Doe to your pastoral care and do so with my best wishes. 

Blessings 

Fr X

________________________________________ 

Subject: Re: Jane Doe

Dear Father X, 

Thank you for your reply. Please understand that your opinion of our ecclesiastical status, of whether we are truly Episcopalians or not, is entirely irrelevant here. 

This is a matter of record keeping and paperwork, not a test of conscience. We are not asking you to take a position on any controversial issues of the day, only to follow canon law in respecting the rights of your parishioner to be certified of her status and removed from your membership roles. 

You might want to review Canon I.17.4 on the transfer of members between congregations. According to the procedure outlined there, I will have her contact your church to "procure a certificate of membership." 

Sincerely, 

Father Timothy Matkin 

________________________________________ 

Subject: RE: Jane Doe 

Fr Matkin: 

Actually my opinion of your status is entirely relevant to this discussion and I find your dismissal of it entirely consistent with the practice of Bishop Iker’s church. If you would re-read Canon I. 17. 3–6 Title I Section (d) you will find the language that makes a transfer impossible. 

(d) Any communicant of any Church in communion with this Church shall be entitled to the benefit of this section so far as the same can be made applicable. 

The fact of the matter is you are not in Communion with General Convention and you have no desire to be so. I personally find your claim to be the Episcopal Church a fraud and look forward to the courts clearing this misconception up. 

I say again what I have already said; “… we are an Episcopal Church and you are not in spite of the sleight of hand action your leadership has carried out and therefore a canonical transfer is not possible – period.” 

Blessings 

Fr X

________________________________________ 

Subject: Re: Jane Doe 

Father X, 

The canon we are looking at is about the rights of the laity, not the rights of the clergy. Jane is a member of your congregation and she is entitled to her rights under the law. 

Sincerely, 

Father Matkin 

There was no response from Jane Doe's church at this point, so we simply had to create a new certificate of membership based upon her testimony rather than a letter from her church. What blew me away about this exchange was not just the seeming inability of Father X to read and understand the canons, but that his views of my diocese led to a mistreatment of his own parishioner.