daved@academy.westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) (02/25/90)
Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans (at least) use an
ancient Christian concept called "the Apostolic Succession." I don't have
my encyclopedias in front of me, but a decent description of
this is to say that the present-day clergy of these denominations
(with whatever necessary qualifiers) are held/hold themselves
to be in an unbroken continuum of office with the Apostles.
This continuity is said to be maintained by the "laying on
of hands" (in ordination, for instance) and, I think, by
continuity in liturgy.
The NT passages on this are not crystal-clear. _presbyteros_,
_episcopos_, and _diaconoi_ (elders, leaders (literally, shepherds,
but the words came to mean 'bishops') and deacons) are mentioned
in the Pastoral (no pun intended at the moment) letters, and in
John's letters; "laying on of hands" in commissioning people for
a task is in Acts, at least; but these 'offices' if we may regard
them as such, do not come with precise job descriptions. The
questions may be phrased: Did the Apostles have a distinct job?
If they did, did it die with them or did they commission successors?
In my own practice, I find that this concept has non-trivial
ramifications. I want to know that the congregation that I worship
with on Sunday has, and treasures, a person-to-person and sacramental
connection with the church Jesus founded. And while I know I am
called to the role of disciple, I don't know that I am called to
the role of Apostle.
One of the great concepts of the Reformers was "the priesthood of
all believers." Part of the effects of the 16th-century reformation
(I prefer the 9th and 12th c. ones, myself :-) was to de-emphasize
this "continuity in office" and to once again stress the role of
the people, and the individual. Some good came of this.
However, the NT material is not to be gotten around; and to varying
extents the Protestant denominations seem to cope with this; several
have bishops of one sort or another- of course, to some extent is
is also an issue of governance.
Please feel free to take issue with these statements; but, to
paraphrase Martin Luther, if you intend to refute me, please do so
out of the NT.
Dave Davis "The keynote of our conversations
should not be nastiness or silliness
daved@westford.ccur.com or flippancy, but a sense of what we
{harvard,uunet,petsd}!masscomp!daved all owe to God." Ad.Eph.4
[The problem of course is that the NT descriptions aren't clear enough
to specify a complete organization chart for the Church. Fairly
shortly after NT times -- certainly by the 2nd Cent -- we find an
episcopal structure fairly close to the usual Orthodox/Catholic one,
i.e. priests and bishops, though without the Papacy in its modern
form. (However some leading role for Rome is also very early.)
However there's some question whether it's reasonable to read the NT
in that light. E.g. Titus 1:5-7 looks like "elder" and "bishop" are
being used as synonyms. In fact I think most Protestants regard
details of church organization as matters which are left to the
discretion of the Church. If you want to try to use an organization
that is consistent with the NT, then I think both the traditional
episcopal organization and Reformed polity can be reasonably defended.
I don't know as much about other traditions. Reformed polity takes
the view that the NT specifies only two offices: deacon and presbyter.
Bishop is viewed as not being distinct from presbyter. Deacons are
normally assigned responsibilities involving doing the work of the
church. Presbyters include both teaching and ruling elders. They are
responsible for the spiritual leadership of the church. Teaching
elders are generally full-time pastors. However I certainly wouldn't
want to claim that this organization is the only Biblical one either.
The Bible has lots of very important descriptions of the character
and activities appropriate to Christian leaders, but it's not so clear
that it gives precise descriptions of exactly how many kinds of
leaders there should be.
This seems to be a separate issue from that of Apostolic succession.
The Protestant understanding is that this was most important for the
first 100 or so years of the Church. At that point there wasn't a New
Testament in the current sense (i.e. a set of documents that everyone
agrees is authoritative) and it was near enough the event that
traditions were fairly close to the original Apostles. By the 16th
Cent. Protestants believed that the written sources had become better
than the traditions, largely through corruption in the traditions.
Thus the Protestant view is that it's more important that a church is
preaching and acting as Christ wanted than that it can trace its
lineage back to the Apostles. This is certainly a matter of
judgement. I have no quarrel with those who value Apostolic
Succession, as long as they get the substance right too.
--clh]avo@icad.com (Alex Orlovsky) (03/16/90)
In article <Mar.11.00.27.46.1990.10677@athos.rutgers.edu>, Ake Eldberg (William de Corbie writes: | |As to priesthood, our view is that there does exist a priestly |office, instituted by Christ. This is separate from the common |priesthood of all Christians, and its purpose is to select some |persons especially for certain very important tasks, such as |distributing the sacraments. There is really only *one* office, |fully manifest in the bishop. He delegates parts of his office |to priests and deacons, but only bishops have the fullness of |the office. | This is strikingly similar to the Orthodox view, where the priest substitutes for the bishop in the parish, but does not replace him. This is most clearly in evidence when the bishop celebrates the Divine Liturgy: the bishop and deacons do most of the work, while the priests hang around waiting for the bishop to delegate something. When the bishop is present, a priest is superfluous - even in his own parish.
mike@turing.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (03/19/90)
How interesting. It seems in churches with apostolic succession, the
bishop is the ordained office, with the priest a sort of stand-in. In
the Reformed tradition, there is a similar situation. We have the one
office (called elder in older references). The difference is that
there are at most a few hundred bishops in this country...and there
are untold hundreds of thousands of Presbyterian Elders....hmmm...
In any case, I think it is an important point...the Reformed tradition
has always held that the people are all the recipients of the
priesthood...and that some are ordained for special work in the
church. The intention is that *all* those participating in special
work in the church be ordained as elder, minister, or deacon, at some
time. Quite a difference.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[That comment was specifically about the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
Priests have a much more important role for Roman Catholics. Of
course the Reformed tradition also has deacons as an ordained order.
Ruling elders and ministers are both types of elder, but deacons are
not. --clh]