hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.47.37.1990.17766@athos.rutgers.edu> bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >...We don't ordain >women simply because we don't "ordain" anyone, being instead entirely >lay-led (which renders moot any attempt at a clergy/laity distinction, >so "lay-led" is a misnomer for us anyway). Yes, we have elders and >deacons, but they aren't regarded as clergy. Despite being an Episcopialian, I tend very much to the opinion that ordination is not particularly mandated by Christ. (one advantage to being an Anglican - they won't throw me out for disagreeing with the Church :-) Christ bapitised. And baptism is the sole requirement for membership in the Christian faith. And all of us are called to preach and witness. So I see no extra role to be filled by the priest. Also the word is never applied to Christians in the new Testament. Bishop is, however. This is essentially an extreme Protestant position, isn't it? Luther either said or was accused of saying 'every man a priest'. I think the greatest extreme is found in the Society of Friends (Quakers) who have - in my understanding - no formal destinctions such as elders. I have a little book from SPCK called 'Priest or President' which presents the case for a liberalisation of who may consecrate and administer the sacrements. Anyone want to discuss it? -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |
cms@dragon.uucp (08/16/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.21.23.1990.12654@athos.rutgers.edu>, hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes: > In article <Aug.5.19.47.37.1990.17766@athos.rutgers.edu> bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >>...We don't ordain >>women simply because we don't "ordain" anyone, being instead entirely >>lay-led (which renders moot any attempt at a clergy/laity distinction, >>so "lay-led" is a misnomer for us anyway). Yes, we have elders and >>deacons, but they aren't regarded as clergy. > > Despite being an Episcopialian, I tend very much to the opinion that ordination > is not particularly mandated by Christ. (one advantage to being an Anglican > - they won't throw me out for disagreeing with the Church :-) > > Christ bapitised. And baptism is the sole requirement for membership in the > Christian faith. And all of us are called to preach and witness. So I see > no extra role to be filled by the priest. Also the word is never applied to > Christians in the new Testament. Bishop is, however. I think when it says Christ baptized, what it means is his disciples baptized in his name. While baptism is required for membership in the Christian faith, in the Episcopal Church baptism is "appropriate administered within the Eucharist as the chief service on a Sunday or other feast" (BCP p. 298). Furthermore, while any baptized Christian may baptize (the BCP gives directions for this pp. 312-314), I maintain that an ordained priest is necessary for celebration of the Eucharist, which is central to the Christian faith. Also, I think "deacon" is used to refer to what is roughly equivalent to parish priest today. Presbyter and bishop had different "tonal qualities," for lack of a better phrase. Discussion on the meaning of the three-fold ministry welcome. At any rate, the BCP also declares that, after an emergency baptism by a lay person, the Church needs to be an informed and a proper public celebration should take place, with the baptized person participating in the complete ceremony with the exception of the administration of the water. Also, I think to hear a Confession, a priest needs to be trained in the rite. He needs to be trained in the sanctity of the rite, the secrecy that is so essential. My priest told me that, in seminary Confession Class (or whatever it was called), they were given hypotheticals such as, "I've planted a bomb, I'm going to kill X tomorrow," etc. what do you do? Silence is paramount. It takes a special kind of person to hear a Confession and I think it is a sacrament properly reserved to an ordained priest. > This is essentially an extreme Protestant position, isn't it? Luther either > said or was accused of saying 'every man a priest'. I tend to agree with this position while simultaneously supporting the ordained priesthood. > I think the greatest extreme is found in the Society of Friends (Quakers) who > have - in my understanding - no formal destinctions such as elders. I've read that Quakers do not recognize any Sacraments at all; true? > I have a little book from SPCK called 'Priest or President' which presents the > case for a liberalisation of who may consecrate and administer the sacrements. I think that lay eucharistic ministers do a fine job. However, as for a lay person celebrating the Eucharist, I have reservations. First, there's the question of the Apostolic succession, but let's go past that. What if there is no priest available in, say, a rural area? Can a lay person be temporarily designated (and trained) to celebrate the Eucharist in the absence of a priest? I don't imagine that happening anytime soon. It's only recently that lay people were allowed to distribute the Body of Christ, after all. The Cup has been a lay option for some time. This is a strange question, but one never knows the strange situations that can crop up in Christendom. Suppose there is a remote mountainous area (there are several in the US), who require mail to be dropped from airplanes, they're so remote. Is it possible to celebrate the Eucharist via telephone? In other words, a lay person has the bread in front of him, and the Cup, and the priest consecrates the bread and wine long distance. Now, when blessing holy water, the priest is required to touch the water, but when consecrating the bread and wine, he doesn't actually touch the wine. Thus, one may conclude that "long-distance consecration" is possible under certain circumstances. Comments from actual priests are welcome here. > Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (08/20/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.21.23.1990.12654@athos.rutgers.edu> hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes: >Despite being an Episcopialian, I tend very much to the opinion that ordination >is not particularly mandated by Christ. (one advantage to being an Anglican >- they won't throw me out for disagreeing with the Church :-) >Christ bapitised. And baptism is the sole requirement for membership in the >Christian faith. And all of us are called to preach and witness. So I see >no extra role to be filled by the priest. Also the word is never applied to >Christians in the new Testament. Bishop is, however. It is true that Christ himself neither explicitly endorsed the concept of an ordained Christian priesthood (indeed, some parts of the Gospel could be quoted in support of the contention that Christ intended His followers to remain Jews), nor did he expound the rest of Christian sacramental theology as we have it today. This framework, however, was in place by, say, the end of the 3rd century AD. It was established by the early Church fathers, and thus by abandoning the priesthood, or the other features of Catholic sacramentalism, we reject nearly the whole of Christian tradition except what is contained in the New Testament canon, which was after all formed by the same men whose teaching we thereby abandon. This is basically the reasoning which John Cardinal Newman used in leaving the Church of England; namely, that the Reformation was not really a reformation, because the elements that were repudiated by the reformers were part of the Church from the beginning. Read the _Apologia_pro_Vita_Sua_ for the details of Newman's argument. Another instructive reference is the first chapters of Tillich's _A_History_of_Christian_Thought_. I personally have not left the Anglican communion, nor do I have any intention of so doing; but I am in the process of reexamining my belief in Protestant doctrines. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [Part of this depends upon what you think ordination means. For most Protestant groups it's simply a way of publically dedicating yourself to certain kinds of ministry. It does not give you any special powers. In the Presbyterian Church, for example, there is no difference in principle between the ordination of a full-time pastor and of an elder or deacon. The same basic ordination service is used, and pastors and elders are considered variants of the same NT office. That there should be some concept of special offices seems implied in much of Paul's advice to his churches, e.g. I Cor 12:27 ff, and in the ordination of the first deacons, in Acts 6. In particular, Acts 6:6 describes what I consider an ordination: People have committed themselves to a particular ministry, and a formal acknowledgement is made, including prayer and laying on of hands. --clh]
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (08/24/90)
In article <Aug.19.22.45.48.1990.16392@athos.rutgers.edu> bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > It is true that Christ himself neither explicitly endorsed the >concept of an ordained Christian priesthood (indeed, some parts of the >Gospel could be quoted in support of the contention that Christ intended >His followers to remain Jews), nor did he expound the rest of Christian >sacramental theology as we have it today. > Christ very explicitly called 12 apostles to follow him, and at another point sent 72 disciples to spread his word. He didn't just say that anyone who followed him was an apostle. So the notion of church order and of certain groups of men* being ordained to a special role goes right back to Christ. Matthew Huntbach *I don't mean by this to argue in favour of an all-male priesthood, I am fairly non-commital on this.
cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca (08/25/90)
[This responds to a discussion of ordination, specifically in the Anglican tradition. hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca originally said that he thinks ordination is not specifically mandated by Christ, though bishops are. I made some more general comments about what ordination means to Protestants. --clh] If you want to talk about ordination in general you have to talk about the Eucharist. (other sacraments too, but among rc's, the laity can baptize, and deacons can marry and preach). I recommend the ARCIC report. This document was the result of discussions between RC and Anglican theologians about whether they could find substantial agreement on three issues that divided them: eucharist, holy orders and the primacy of Rome. They found that what they understood by the eucharist was intimately connected with the notion of priesthood. The idea of a bishop is connected with the teaching office of the church. Anyway, the ARCIC report stated the issues very clearly, I thought. C.J.D.
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.21.23.1990.12654@athos.rutgers.edu> hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes: > >Despite being an Episcopialian, I tend very much to the opinion that ordination >is not particularly mandated by Christ. (one advantage to being an Anglican >- they won't throw me out for disagreeing with the Church :-) > >Christ bapitised. And baptism is the sole requirement for membership in the >Christian faith. And all of us are called to preach and witness. So I see >no extra role to be filled by the priest. Also the word is never applied to >Christians in the new Testament. Bishop is, however. Well, we are called a nation of priests. Still, I think your basic point is well taken. I am not impressed with the professional clergy class that has grown up around the denominations. Nor am I impressed by the denominations themselves. Understand that I'm not going to call for the end to the professional clergy and denominations--through them the Gospel has been preached and many have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. For this I praise God! But I also think that we imbue the clergy and the denominations with too much power and control. I also think that often people abdicate their own obligations and responsibilities to the clergy. Witnessing is left to the clergy and lay-leaders, but we are responsible for doing this. Many things are left to the clergy (or missionaries) that each individual Christian is responsible for doing. Paying others to fulfill our obligations and responsibilities smacks of selling indulgences. There is no room for substitutionary fulfillment of our responsibilities and obligations as Christians. The Apostles were not ordained of men but of God. Whose ordination is more valid? The Apostles were not called of men but of God. Whose calling is more valid? I submit that the calling and ordination of God is more valid and of preeminence over anything that man can devise. The only point I'm not quite in agreement on is the baptism being the sole requirement for membership in the Christian faith. I submit that the sole requirement is acceptance of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice upon the Cross for our sins. Baptism symbolizes our faith (pistis) in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice and our salvation. What do others think? Gene
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.24.04.02.50.1990.29539@athos.rutgers.edu> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes: >In article <Aug.19.22.45.48.1990.16392@athos.rutgers.edu> bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: >> It is true that Christ himself neither explicitly endorsed the >>concept of an ordained Christian priesthood (indeed, some parts of the >>Gospel could be quoted in support of the contention that Christ intended >>His followers to remain Jews), nor did he expound the rest of Christian >>sacramental theology as we have it today. >Christ very explicitly called 12 apostles to follow him, and at >another point sent 72 disciples to spread his word. He didn't >just say that anyone who followed him was an apostle. >So the notion of church order and of certain groups of men* >being ordained to a special role goes right back to Christ. I agree with you that far. Christ did commission certain of his followers to certain ministries. It is usually unclear (in Scripture) whether any of these commissions were permanent. (Most are taken by Protestants as binding upon the entire Church; a good example is the commission given at the Ascension.) Another good example is the "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" line. Even if this is authentic (which some scholars doubt), Christ is not quoted as saying, "You are to be the first Bishop of Rome, and your successors shall be acknowledged as the infallible heads of My Church." In the same way, Christ instituted the "sacraments of the Gospel" by baptizing, and by celebrating the Last Supper with his disciples. He did not however enunciate the doctrine of the Real Presence, nor of Transsubstantiation, nor any of the various dogmas which have grown up around baptism. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com
carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (09/02/90)
In article <Aug.25.03.10.34.1990.15100@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >I am not impressed with the professional clergy class that has grown up >around the denominations. Nor am I impressed by the denominations >themselves. Understand that I'm not going to call for the end to the >professional clergy and denominations--through them the Gospel has been >preached and many have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. For >this I praise God! But I also think that we imbue the clergy and the >denominations with too much power and control. I also think that often >people abdicate their own obligations and responsibilities to the >clergy. Witnessing is left to the clergy and lay-leaders, but we are >responsible for doing this. Many things are left to the clergy (or >missionaries) that each individual Christian is responsible for doing. A congregation which leaves responsibility for its witness entirely to clergy and lay leaders is a spiritually dead one. I agree that too many individual church members fail to bear witness to the faith of the Church in their daily lives, but it's not clear to me whether this is simply because they have abdicated their responsibility to do so. I would contend that it is rather likely because the faith of the Church is not being effectively communicated to those people. By the same token, the individual failure of each of us to witness effectively to the Gospel is due at least in part to our failure to fully comprehend it. >Paying others to fulfill our obligations and responsibilities smacks of >selling indulgences. There is no room for substitutionary fulfillment >of our responsibilities and obligations as Christians. I know of no part of the Church which claims that its clergy is intended to fulfill this role. Those of us who belong to churches who have "priests" have them because we believe that they are used of God in the delivery of His grace through the sacraments. We do not have them because we expect them to fulfill our religious obligations (although one occasionally finds a church member with this view). >The Apostles were not ordained of men but of God. Whose ordination is >more valid? The Apostles were not called of men but of God. Whose >calling is more valid? I submit that the calling and ordination of God >is more valid and of preeminence over anything that man can devise. We hold that the ordination of our church *is* the ordination of God. Supplying objective proof of this claim is obviously problematic - as indeed is substantiation of any sort of claim that Person X is "ordained of God", though Person X be not ordained by the Church. To suggest that there is an "ordination of God" different from the ordination of the church is to accuse the church of heresy or worse. >The only point I'm not quite in agreement on is the baptism being the >sole requirement for membership in the Christian faith. I submit that >the sole requirement is acceptance of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice >upon the Cross for our sins. Baptism symbolizes our faith (pistis) in >Jesus Christ and His sacrifice and our salvation. The Methodists, for example, admit to communion anyone who is repentant and "in love and charity with your neighbors", regardless of whether he/she has received water baptism. (I left the United Methodist Church long enough ago that I don't remember the exact words anymore.) In the Episcopal Church we require water baptism of communicants; but this is the only requirement (formally, I believe, the baptism must have been performed using the trinitarian formula), and is easily fulfilled for anyone who has not had it. I can't think of a reason why anyone (except the Wicked Witch of the West) would object to water baptism. [On the comment about the ordination of God, I should note that all of the churches that I know require that its full-time clergy have a "call". That is, they must be called by God to a full-time witness for him. Thus it is intended that our clergy should be the modern equivalent of the apostles and other leaders in NT times. It is obviously difficult for anyone else to judge whether someone is called, and no doubt there are some mistakes made, but every attempt is made to help the candidate prayerfully consider whether they have a true call. There are many clergy whose ministry over the years makes it clear that they are in fact called. --clh]
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (09/02/90)
In article <Aug.30.03.30.04.1990.24199@athos.rutgers.edu> bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > Another good example is the "You are Peter, and upon this rock I >will build my church" line. Even if this is authentic (which some >scholars doubt), Christ is not quoted as saying, "You are to be the >first Bishop of Rome, and your successors shall be acknowledged as the >infallible heads of My Church." Well neither is Christ quoted as saying "Here's the book of my religion, now get on with it". The Catholic belief is that these things developed through the working of the Holy Spirit. If they are not explicitly found in scripture, their foundation is and their development is in the spirit of Christs's teaching. (BTW, I don't know how many times I have to post this, but the Catholic teaching is that the Pope is "infallible" ONLY when expressing views already held by the whole Church, thus Jeff Carroll's wording is, if not actually wrong, misleading in that it suggests the common Protestant fallacy that the Pope is a sort of pseudo-God for Catholics) Matthew Huntbach
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (09/18/90)
Re: Jeff Carroll (Hello, and greetings! I'm back!) In article <Aug.30.03.30.04.1990.24199@athos.rutgers.edu> bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes, in response to Matthew Huntbach: >>Christ very explicitly called 12 apostles to follow him, and at >>another point sent 72 disciples to spread his word. He didn't >>just say that anyone who followed him was an apostle. >>So the notion of church order and of certain groups of *men* >>being ordained to a special role goes right back to Christ. Thank you for bringing up the point. (I'm going on a tangent, here, but thank you, anyway! :) ) It is said that one *possible* (?) "justification" for the exclusion of women from the Catholic priesthood is the long legacy extending from the apostles on downward. In fairness, I wish to counter this somewhat by saying that, in the early "church" (before any form of the word "Catholic" was ever applied) of the first few centuries A.D., men and women were allowed fairly equal "air time" as far as being religious leaders. It wasn't until the first Councils were held that any sort of formal stricture was placed upon women as such. At the present time, it's more-or-less the will of the present pope that keeps women out of the ordained ministries (in seeming opposition to the spirit of Vatican II, I might add!). > Another good example is the "You are Peter, and upon this rock I >will build my church" line. Even if this is authentic (which some >scholars doubt), Christ is not quoted as saying, "You are to be the >first Bishop of Rome, and your successors shall be acknowledged as the >infallible heads of My Church." Absolutely. The idea of infallibility of the Church bishops (not just the pope [i.e. the Bishop of Rome]) was extrapolated from various sources in the Bible and from the Sacred Tradition of the Church. In fact, most of the structure of the Catholic Church is extrapolated dogma. In defense of this, however, I would add that this extrapolated dogma was done (on the whole) with the best of motives, and is not necessarily invalid for having been extrapolated rather than written in Scripture. Just a few $0.0x worth... -- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu