Author Topic: WordAlone  (Read 29832 times)

Dave_Poedel

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #120 on: July 02, 2007, 07:03:09 PM »
I think it is very important to make clear distinctions. There is nothing wrong with "historic episcopacy." But when it is made a requirement of the church's external unity, that is quite another thing. That's the key difference. The Lutheran Confessions are quite clear that ranks and grades in the ministry are appropriate, but not by divine mandate, but only by external arrangment for the sake of order in the church. Our own Synod is in church fellowship with several churches which have a historic episcopate, but in each case they have made it very clear that this is not by divine mandate, or required for there to be unity and full communion, but for the sake order which they choose. That's an important distinction.

So, then, have those Churches in fellowship with us offered to share it with those evangelical catholics in the LCMS who might like that sort of thing?

Gladfelteri

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #121 on: July 02, 2007, 07:08:48 PM »
If someone is interested, please send me an e-mail or a message.   :)

Blessings,
Irl


Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #122 on: July 02, 2007, 07:12:47 PM »
Pastor McCain writes:
lead people to believe that the consecration of a bishop in historic succession and then the ordination received from such a bishop is required for there to be "full communion" between churches.

I comment, somewhat exasperated:
No. No. And no! It is not required for full communion between churches. It was not required in our concord with the Reformed Churches. It was not required in our fellowship agreement with the Moravians. I suspect it won't be required when we declare fellowship with the Methodists. But we agreed that we could accept it for the sake of fellowship with Episcopalians. We did not think then, we do not think now that it is required for fellowship. We can accept it as a condition of fellowship with Episcopalians, that is not to say we believe it is required.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42619
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #123 on: July 02, 2007, 07:19:49 PM »
"You don't have to believe it, you just have to do it." -Martin Marty

Do children have to understand and know and believe everything in the Lord's Prayer before they can pray it? Or the Creeds?

A saying I have, attributed to Jesse Jackson goes:

It is easier to walk your way into a new way of thinking
than to think your way into a new way of walking.


We used a similar motto at the alcoholic rehab hospital where I worked part-time: "Act yourself into a new way of thinking."

In John Westerhoff's stages of faith, the first stage is one of copying behaviors. As I mentioned above, children will copy Christian behaviors and words and prayers without understanding (and thus believing) them. We hope that a more mature faith will follow.

Nearly 25 years ago when early communion was introduced at my brother's church, he didn't believe in it. I didn't agree with it. However, he trusted those who promoted it (and I think that his wife is in favor ot it). His young children started receiving communion. After participating in it, he became a great supporter of it. Doing it came before believing it.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #124 on: July 02, 2007, 07:49:47 PM »
But of course, under the terms of the agreement, all bishops in the ELCA, going forward, must be consecrated by an Episcopalian bishop, which is, if I'm not mistaken, is what makes Episcopalians, Episcopalians: the bishop [episkopos] is the thing.

Still wrong. 

After the passage of CCM, all new ELCA Bishops are to be installed -- okay, we deliberately didn't use the word "consecrated," but a thing is what it is regardless of what you call it) -- or, if you please, "consecrated" by 3 Bishops in the Historic Succession.  Because of our ecumenical relationship with the Episcopal Church, this would normally include a local Episcopal Bishop.  And vice versa.  I don't know if any new ELCA Bishops have been installed without the presence of an Episcopal Bishop, but I know at least one Episcopal Bishop was consecrated without an ELCA Bishop being present.  That would be the current Bishop of New Hampshire.  (And, yes, Bishop Krister Stendahl was there, but he is a retired Bishop of the Church of Sweden -- which is not a party to the Concordat/CCM -- not the ELCA.)

What makes an Episcopal Bishop is election and consecration in the Episcopal Church.  A Bishop installed with a promise to teach and preach in accordance with the Lutheran Confessions is a Lutheran Bishop. 

Pax, Steven+

The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #125 on: July 02, 2007, 08:19:03 PM »
Pr. Austin fulminates:
No. No. And no! It is not required for full communion between churches.

I comment:
Somebody is not following the conversation very closely. We are talking about the ELCA and the ECUSA, not the other churches with whom the ELCA is in full communion. The required presence of a bishop in "historic succession" as a requirement for there to be "full communion" is a violation of AC VII. It's that simple. The unity of the church consists ONLY in agreement in the purely preached Gospel and rightly administered Sacraments. A historic episcopacy is a nice thing to have, if that is how a church chooses to order itself, but making a HE essential to a "full communion" agreement is a denial, de facto, of AC VII. Again, it's that simple.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2007, 08:27:35 PM by ptmccain »

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #126 on: July 02, 2007, 08:20:25 PM »
So, then, have those Churches in fellowship with us offered to share it with those evangelical catholics in the LCMS who might like that sort of thing?

Actually, I know an LCMS candidate for the ministry who is being ordained by the Bishop of our partner church in Kenya, who himself is in historic/apostolic succession via the Church of Sweden. I was teasing him telling him he would have to come back here and lay his hands on me so I could "get it" too.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2007, 08:44:05 PM by ptmccain »

scott3

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #127 on: July 02, 2007, 09:23:06 PM »
So, then, have those Churches in fellowship with us offered to share it with those evangelical catholics in the LCMS who might like that sort of thing?

Actually, I know an LCMS candidate for the ministry who is being ordained by the Bishop of our partner church in Kenya, who himself is in historic/apostolic succession via the Church of Sweden. I was teasing him telling him he would have to come back here and lay his hands on me so I could "get it" too.

This is the guy going to be at pastor in Kibera (the biggest slum in Nairobi)?

Dave_Poedel

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #128 on: July 02, 2007, 11:10:01 PM »
So, then, have those Churches in fellowship with us offered to share it with those evangelical catholics in the LCMS who might like that sort of thing?



Actually, I know an LCMS candidate for the ministry who is being ordained by the Bishop of our partner church in Kenya, who himself is in historic/apostolic succession via the Church of Sweden. I was teasing him telling him he would have to come back here and lay his hands on me so I could "get it" too.

So, if I was installed once by a pastor ordained in Denmark by a Swedish Bishop I have "it"?

Erma_S._Wolf

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #129 on: July 03, 2007, 12:03:53 AM »

So, if I was installed once by a pastor ordained in Denmark by a Swedish Bishop I have "it"?

   No.
   I think (which is sometimes an iffy undertaking) that you only would have "it" if you were ordained by a bishop who had been been properly ordained and then later consecrated by other bishops who are in the historic episcopate.  Presbyteral installation, or even ordination, does not constitute a passing on of being in apostolic secession (hence the arguments regarding being ordained with the laying on of hands by a bishop). 

Erma Wolf 

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42619
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #130 on: July 03, 2007, 12:50:35 AM »
The required presence of a bishop in "historic succession" as a requirement for there to be "full communion" is a violation of AC VII. It's that simple.
Since we do not require a bishop in "historic succession" for our full communion agreements with the other church bodies. It is not a requirement for full communion. It never has been. We have chosen to adopt it for the sake of our brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church. On their side, there is this paragraph in CCM:

16. To enable the full communion that is coming into being by means of this Concordat, The Episcopal Church pledges to continue the process for enacting a temporary suspension, in this case only, of the seventeenth-century restriction that "no persons are allowed to exercise the offices of bishop, priest, or deacon in this Church unless they are so ordained, or have already received such ordination with the laying-on-of-hands by bishops who are themselves duly qualified to confer Holy Orders" ("Preface to the Ordination Rites," The Book of Common Prayer, p. 510). The purpose of this action, to declare this restriction inapplicable to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, will be to permit the full interchangeability and reciprocity of all its pastors as priests or presbyters within The Episcopal Church, without any further ordination or re-ordination or supplemental ordination whatsoever, subject always to canonically or constitutionally approved invitation. The purpose of temporarily suspending this restriction, which has been a constant requirement in Anglican polity since the Ordinal of 1662, is precisely in order to secure the future implementation of the ordinals' same principle in the sharing of ordained ministries. It is for this reason that The Episcopal Church can feel confident in taking this unprecedented step with regard to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

They have a requirement that bishops, priests, and deacons -- those who preside at holy communion, have the laying on of hands by bishops in the historic episcopate. They have temporarily suspended that requirement for the thousands of ELCA clergy who did not receive such an ordination. This is not an ELCA requirement, but a TEC requirement. We allow exceptions to this rule. We allow clergy from our Reformed full communion partners who are not ordained by HE bishops to preside in our congregations.

Quote
The unity of the church consists ONLY in agreement in the purely preached Gospel and rightly administered Sacraments.
If that was the ONLY requirement for unity, why aren't the ELCA and LCMS full communion partners? Or previously, the ALC and LCMS?

Quote
A historic episcopacy is a nice thing to have, if that is how a church chooses to order itself, but making a HE essential to a "full communion" agreement is a denial, de facto, of AC VII. Again, it's that simple.
CCM, especially in conjunction with our other full communion agreements, is not a denail of AC VII. It's that simple.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

pearson

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #131 on: July 03, 2007, 12:55:28 AM »
The unity of the church consists ONLY in agreement in the purely preached Gospel and rightly administered Sacraments.

Not if you're talking about the "satis est" clause in AC VII.  The "satis est" clause only stipulates what is sufficient for the unity of the church, not what is necessary, or even what is minimally necessary, for the unity of the church.  Melanchthon was one of the premiere logicians in Europe (his textbook on logic was adopted by Harvard when it opened in 1636), and he surely knew the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.  Melanchthon chose his words carefully in AC VII, and his intent was clearly to indicate that word and sacrament were nothing more than sufficient for the unity of the church, logically implying that other things may also be sufficient to engender that unity.  Whether Melanchthon thought the historic episcopacy was one of those "other things" is impossible to say.  But it can't be ruled out on the basis of the "satis est" clause in AC VII.

Tom Pearson    

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #132 on: July 03, 2007, 05:32:16 AM »
The simple fact that people can still talk or joke about the specific laying-on-of-hands by someone who has "it," making "it" the mythology of hand-to-head-to-hand-to-head-over-the-centuries indicates that people here have neither followed, read, nor understood the theological underpinnings of our agreements with Episcopalians. Some of the Word Alone people and all of the publications of FOCL have persisted in mis-stating the nature of the agreements. Others, I have found, use this aspect of the agreement as a hook upon which to hang other things they don't like. No one has ever been able to show how adopting a form of the historic Episcopate (practiced in other Lutheran churches around the world, some of them even affiliated with the LC-MS) violates the Lutheran confessions. If it violates the Lutheran confessions, than the LC-MSers better start breaking some of their "fellowship" agreements.

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #133 on: July 03, 2007, 06:58:06 AM »
So, if I was installed once by a pastor ordained in Denmark by a Swedish Bishop I have "it"?

Hard to say, Dave. Did he actually put his hands on you? Both hands? One hand? Only a few fingers? Plus, he is "just" a pastor, so I'm not sure he has sufficient episcopal "wattage" to transmit a clear HE signal.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 07:26:21 AM by ptmccain »

ptmccain

  • Guest
Re: WordAlone
« Reply #134 on: July 03, 2007, 06:59:49 AM »

Quote
The unity of the church consists ONLY in agreement in the purely preached Gospel and rightly administered Sacraments.
If that was the ONLY requirement for unity, why aren't the ELCA and LCMS full communion partners? Or previously, the ALC and LCMS?

Because we do not agree.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 07:27:49 AM by ptmccain »