Truth is stranger than fiction. If this hadn’t been reported in Anglican Mainstream I wouldn’t have believed it. I suppose this is “open” communion taken to extremes.
From Toronto Star
St. Peter’s Anglican Church has long been known as an open and inclusive place.
So open, it seems, they won’t turn anyone away. Not even a dog.
That’s how a blessed canine ended up receiving communion from interim priest Rev. Marguerite Rea during a morning service the last Sunday in June.
According to those in attendance at the historical church at 188 Carlton St. in downtown Toronto, it was a spontaneous gesture, one intended to make both the dog and its owner – a first timer at the church — feel welcomed. But at least one parishioner saw the act as an affront to the rules and regulations of the Anglican Church. He filed a complaint with the reverend and with the Anglican Diocese of Toronto about the incident – and has since left the church.
“I wrote back to the parishioner that it is not the policy of the Anglican Church to give communion to animals,” said Bishop Patrick Yu, the area bishop of York-Scarborough responsible for St. Peter’s, who received the complaint in early July. “I can see why people would be offended. It is a strange and shocking thing, and I have never heard of it happening before.
“I think the reverend was overcome by what I consider a misguided gesture of welcoming.”
It was more than misguided, it was downright sacrilege.
What more proof is needed to see that the infection of innovation and revisionism has had its devastating effects?
I notice that there is no mention of any disciplinary action taken against the offending priest. By this lack of discipline, can we surmise that this was/is somehow ok? Perhaps this is a variation of a “local option”? Can we look forward to the day when a person, as long as they have been baptized somewhere (and who knows where and by whom) that such person can be “married” to a dog? After all, if a dog can be administered the Holy Sacrament of Communion, than why not the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?
AMPisAnglican – in either case, the argument from valid matter applies, or in the words of the 39 Articles
“XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.”
I think one can easily state that the dog is “void of a lively faith”.
The 15th Homily is ON THE WORTHY RECEIVING OF THE SACRAMENT. I’m amused that it cites as authority “Cyprian, De cana Domini”. Well worth reading again.
Anglicanism teaches that marriage isn’t a sacrament:
However, your point is well taken. If inclusiveness is all that matters, well, this is the logical extention, is it not?
#3 No kidding
#4 groan
Well the Bishop was right about one thing – This priest was definitely overcome.
Let us Pray –
After my prayer it occured to me that perhaps this “first-timer” was blind, still no excuse but would explain how the dog got to the “Lord’s Table” in the first place.
Stuck, if you are going to insist on using the word “priestess” I will continue to edit you. A priestess is someone who practices Wicca.
It sounds like a diabolical mistake, however well-meaning. What surprises me the most about this is the lack of theological understanding that would have lead to the situation. How is it that an Anglican Priest, supposedly theologically educated, can think a) a dog can ‘do this in remembrance of me’, and b) that a dog can commune with Christ and other human beings who have faith in Christ?! Did Christ – 100% God and 100% man (note, not 100% dog!) – die on behalf of a DOG? Does a DOG sin, and is it in need of redemption? Can a DOG be incorporated into the ‘body of Christ’ by faith in Christ, and thus participate in Christ? The priest either had a complete brain explosion and lost any semblance of theological understanding in that moment of panic, or the theological formation simply wasn’t there in the first place. Arrrgghhhh, what a nightmare. :-s
What amazes me is Patrick’s low-key response to this abomination. As a dog lover who has never been without a canine companion for more than a couple of months at a time in 70 years, I find this act an abomination and total degradation of the Blessed Sacrament. Yet, as a Priest functioning in ANiC within ACNA I am not surprised at either the action or the light-headed episcopal response emanating from the ACoC! What a debased view of the Christ-commanded Sacrament!
What are they teaching in cemetery (seminary)? Very little shocks me in this day and age. But this has simply gone too far and is receiving to simple a pass-off from the episcopal guardian of the faith – if such still exists within ACoC.
Kate #8
Whoa there, Kate. I think you are going way too far when you edit a post just because you don’t happen to like the commentors word usage. The usage of the word “priestess” is just as valid as the words “stewardess”, “temptress”,
“waitress”, and a host of others. I suggest that you owe Stuck and appology.
You are assuming that the article reports everything that has taken place. Bsp Yu gives a statement to the press, that does not mean that encompasses the whole of his response, he might very well have dealt with the priest privately. Even scripture talks about if somebody is in error to go to them quietly and only go to the whole community if the error is not corrected.
“It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.”
Matthew 15:26
This in the TO Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/07/22/14797361.html
#11 It is a highly inflamatory term. The word has never been used to refer to women leaders in the Christian church. In modern usage it is a word that is used to refer to leaders in Wicca and other pagan religions. Whether Stuck intended that way or not (and I am assuming probably not), in the blogosphere it is mainly used to ridicule women presbyters, and people who agree with WO. Further, this is not the first time the issue has come up.
Stand Firm will ban people who won’t stop using it. Editing is a better solution, in my view (and it is an issue that all the mods have agreed on).
Father Lawrence, you just made my day! That’s very funny!
#12 Point taken. Disciplinary action may well have happened.
Hello Kate (5)
I must say that I do not agree with you when you post that Anglicanism teaches that marriage isn’t a sacrament. The Article of Religion that you quote does specifically state:
“There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.”
These two Sacraments are known as Holy Sacraments, because they were ordained by Christ. What’s more, these are the only two Sacraments that were administered to Christ (Baptism by St. John, and Communion Christ self administered at the Last Supper). But to say that the other five are not sacraments because they were not ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel is not reasonable.
The Article does go on to talk of the other five sacraments, and states:
“are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel…”
Which I take to mean as not having been ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel. But not being of the Gospel, can they still be counted as “ordinary” sacraments?
Christ does talk specifically about Holy Matrimony in Matthew 19:4-6 and also in Mark 10:5-9, and in both passages does teach “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Clearly indicating that Holy Matrimony is an Act of God in which God is joining a man to his wife. It is also clear that Holy Matrimony existed prior to the Ministry of Christ, and why would Christ ordain something that already existed?
Also, only someone who has been ordained may administer Confirmation, Holy Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, and Confession. Only a Bishop may administer Ordination. But if these are truly not Sacraments, than why can they not be administered by Laypeople?
Hello Kate (15)
Trying to not get into the woman ordination (wo) debate (again) at this time, but I can respect/accept that the term priestess is an offensive term for those who do support wo. However, can you respect/accept that for us who oppose wo the use of the term Priest to identify women “priests” is equally offensive?
If this blog is going to accommodate those who support wo by editing the term “priestess”, will it also accommodate those who oppose wo by suggesting a term other “Priest” to identify women “preists”? I can think of a few but am sure that you would find these even more offensive.
#11 – Just to back up Kate on this, we avoid the term because, as Kate says, is it often used as an insult and not as such really helpful to a reasoned discussion (and that’s the only type we have here, right?)
Looks like one of my posts was removed. I was being serious, and will ask the question again.
Those of us who oppose woman ordination find using the term “preist” for a woman to be offensive, and I refuse to use the word “preist” to describe a woman. What term other than “preistess” would be acceptable for this blog?
I take back post 21. My post 19 suddenly re-appeared as I was posting 21.
How about presbyter?
A sacrament is a sacrament, and Anglicanism teaches that there are only two. I think that “sacrament” and “sacrament of the Gospel” mean essentiall the same thing. I don’t think that it is reasonable to suggest that there are different levels of sacraments.
Then again, I see things from a very low church worldview. I guess you’ve all figured that out by now, eh?
I suspect that was Elizabeth trying to have her cake and eat it. The wording is deliberately ambiguous to allow Catholics to maintain that there are seven sacraments, while insisting that there are only two Gospel sacraments, which keeps Protestants happy.
You are probably right, Gordon.
Actually some find it offensive to call a female clergyperson a woman priest; we don’t call a male clergyperson a man priest. The majority of today’s churches don’t ordain women to the priesthood. I don’t think Professor J. I. Packer supports female ordination. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this issue. A priest is a priest, male or female.
Is comment moderation in my case now automatic?
Obviously not…
I think I’ll close this conversation for now. I do understand there is a range of opinion on that particular word, but for reasons we have already stated we would prefer that it be avoided here wherever possible. I know not all will agree with that decision, but that’s the call we made.