Dan Selbo's election as NALC Bishop

[James_Gale]

Could someone please simplify this for an ordinary layman? Is it accurate to say that the NALC regards consecrating or installing a Bishop as not requiring the laying on of hands of a Bishop in the historic apostolic succession, but if it happens, that's OK?

George, I would say that is correct.

Kind of makes debating about it moot then, doesn't it?

Hi George,
Well, we would sure lose a lot of discussions around here if we omitted moot points, don’t you think?
 
Donna

"Moot" is one of those marvelously (maddeningly?) ambiguous words.  It can mean either "open to discussion or debate" or "of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance."  George obviously intended the second meaning, which now predominates in the US.  However, it would not have been incorrect (overly snarky, yes, but not incorrect) to respond that we are discussing the issue precisely because it is moot.

[Charles Austin]

Mr. Gale’s comments just upstream are on target. I think that even those favoring some weak form of the “historic episcopacy” do not consider it a deal-breaker.
Re “moot”-

[John_Hannah]

My contact with NALC pastors  is limited, nonetheless I find the analysis of Richard Johnson and James Gale right on.

Peace, JOHN

[Coach-Rev]

well, we were thanked a couple of years ago by the LCMS guest, after all (in Nashville I believe) for replacing the LCMS as the most hated synod by the ELCA... 

“In accord with a Churchwide Assembly resolution in 2013, the ELCA maintains regular contact with the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). Together with leaders from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC), Presiding Bishop Eaton and others have met several times with NALC leaders in order to build relationships, exchange information and discuss difficult issues.”
ELCA report on Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Relations

That's interesting to read.  Alas, my experience as an ELCA pastor on ELCA-NALC relations is that many ELCA synodical and churchwide officials are openly hostile to any mention or acknowledgement of the NALC.   

Pax, Steven+

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Cottingham:
well, we were thanked a couple of years ago by the LCMS guest, after all (in Nashville I believe) for replacing the LCMS as the most hated synod by the ELCA...
Me:
And I know how young, upstart revolutionaries love being hated.
But, doggone it, I just can’t hate the NALC. For the most part, you are “us.” Just not certain ones of “us.”

[Keith Falk]

Could someone please simplify this for an ordinary layman? Is it accurate to say that the NALC regards consecrating or installing a Bishop as not requiring the laying on of hands of a Bishop in the historic apostolic succession, but if it happens, that's OK?

George, I would say that is correct.

Kind of makes debating about it moot then, doesn't it?

I don't really view this discussion as a debate.  I don't think that anyone here is really trying to win others to a point of view.  Instead, I believe that the discussion is a collective effort at (i) reconstructing what the NALC actually has done when installing bishops; (ii) discerning its reasons (if any); and (iii) offering semi-informed speculation about the future role (if any) of historic succession when installing bishops.  This all stemmed from Pr. Johnson's musings over whether the NALC at its founding planted the seeds for eventual tension between high- and low-church members.  Historic succession could be one manifestation of that tension, as illustrated by the fact that the NALC's leadership includes people who helped lead opposing sides during the ELCA's passionate CCM debates over the so-called historic episcopate. 


You asked whether "the NALC regards consecrating or installing a Bishop as not requiring the laying on of hands of a Bishop in the historic apostolic succession, but if it happens, that's OK."  From a legal perspective, you're basically right.  The NALC does not require the laying on of hands by a bishop in historic succession (or by anyone else, for that matter).  The NALC's governing document simply don't address the issue either way.  I believe strongly that this in part is because the NALC's founding leaders would have disagreed over the issue and that that disagreement was not worth litigating, at least not at a time when other priorities (e.g., getting a new church body off the ground) were much, much higher.


(NALC leaders did incorporate one element of the ELCA's settlement on this issue.  The NALC constitution provides that the "Bishop will normally conduct the rite of ordination," but that "absent extraordinary circumstances," if a candidate asks the bishop to appoint "a particular ordained minister to preside" instead, the request "shall be approved."  Some of the NALC's founders would have preferred a requirement that the bishop conduct all ordinations.  But such a requirement would have been unacceptable to many others.)

I think it is, let's say "interesting", that there are so many STS candidates for bishop - and not a single one has been elected.  Granted, we are working with a limited data set, but it is still true.  4 nominees for the first election (Bradosky, L. Yoder, Schultz, Lehman); 3 of the 4 are STS, and the one who wasn't won.  The next election was basically not in question, as Bishop Bradosky was running again.  In this latest one, 7 or 8 (I can't remember if Melinda Jones is STS) of the nominees in advance of the convocation are STS, and one was a former STS member.

[Svensen]

Have any STS members been elected bishop in the ELCA?

[J. Thomas Shelley]

Have any STS members been elected bishop in the ELCA?

Michael Lozano was elected Bishop of the Northwest Pennsylvania Synod this year.

Also this year, Beth Schlegel was elected Secretary of the Lower Susquehanna Synod.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Have any STS members been elected bishop in the ELCA?

Michael Lozano was elected Bishop of the Northwest Pennsylvania Synod this year.

Also this year, Beth Schlegel was elected Secretary of the Lower Susquehanna Synod.

Pastors of the STS have been elected to offices in several synods across the ELCA.  Two of the founding subscribers were retired ELCA Bishops and one Bishop subscribed after retiring.  Michael Lozano was a member of the Society, but resigned some time ago and he does not appear in the directory published shortly after last year's retreat.

Pax, Steven+

[JEdwards]

Yes, but it is unclear whether the participation of three consecrating bishops is considered necessary for validity, or only for liceity.  As a modern-day example, Rome appears to recognize the validity of the episcopal consecrations of the bishops of the Society of St Pius X, despite the fact that only 2 bishops (Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer) laid hands on them.  The consecrations -- which occurred despite the express prohibition of Pope John Paul II -- were clearly illicit, and all participants were excommunicated, but Rome appears to recognize their validity.  In fact, JP2 himself, in reacting to this event, specifically noted that the participants were excommunicated for "disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated."

Peace,
Jon

The distinction between "valid" and "licit" has been applied to our Lutheran celebrations of the sacrament. That is: the sacrament consecrated by a Lutheran pastor is "valid" but it is not "licit" since we are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Peace, JOHN

From the RC perspective, even the validity of a Lutheran Eucharist is debatable.  Vatican II put it this way in Unitatis Redintegratio:

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

(emphasis added).  My understanding is that there is discussion in Catholic circles and in Lutheran-Catholic dialogues about whether "absence" properly captures the meaning of "defectus" in the Latin original.  If so, then (from the RC perspective), Lutheran pastors are simply laymen who are incapable of presiding over a true Eucharist.  However, another school of though is that a better translation would be "incompleteness", which leaves open the question of whether Lutheran pastors are ordained enough, so to speak, to celebrate a valid Eucharist.

Peace,
Jon

[John_Hannah]

Yes, but it is unclear whether the participation of three consecrating bishops is considered necessary for validity, or only for liceity.  As a modern-day example, Rome appears to recognize the validity of the episcopal consecrations of the bishops of the Society of St Pius X, despite the fact that only 2 bishops (Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer) laid hands on them.  The consecrations -- which occurred despite the express prohibition of Pope John Paul II -- were clearly illicit, and all participants were excommunicated, but Rome appears to recognize their validity.  In fact, JP2 himself, in reacting to this event, specifically noted that the participants were excommunicated for "disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated."

Peace,
Jon

The distinction between "valid" and "licit" has been applied to our Lutheran celebrations of the sacrament. That is: the sacrament consecrated by a Lutheran pastor is "valid" but it is not "licit" since we are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Peace, JOHN

From the RC perspective, even the validity of a Lutheran Eucharist is debatable.  Vatican II put it this way in Unitatis Redintegratio:

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

(emphasis added).  My understanding is that there is discussion in Catholic circles and in Lutheran-Catholic dialogues about whether "absence" properly captures the meaning of "defectus" in the Latin original.  If so, then (from the RC perspective), Lutheran pastors are simply laymen who are incapable of presiding over a true Eucharist.  However, another school of though is that a better translation would be "incompleteness", which leaves open the question of whether Lutheran pastors are ordained enough, so to speak, to celebrate a valid Eucharist.

Peace,
Jon

There is not unanimity within Roman Catholic circles.

Peace, JOHN

[Charles Austin]

Jon Edwards writes:
If so, then (from the RC perspective), Lutheran pastors are simply laymen who are incapable of presiding over a true Eucharist.  However, another school of though is that a better translation would be "incompleteness", which leaves open the question of whether Lutheran pastors are ordained enough, so to speak, to celebrate a valid Eucharist.
I comment:
But to focus on the matter of “orders,” seems to detract from the nature of the sacrament, and put the essence of the sacrament of the issue of whether the one presiding is “properly” ordained. I seem to recall that the international Lutheran-Catholic dialogs have found a way around this. But in experiential reality, I think I see that most people don’t care whether you are a Roman Catholic priest or a Lutheran pastor. They don’t see the one presiding, they see the sacrament itself.

[JEdwards]

Jon Edwards writes:
If so, then (from the RC perspective), Lutheran pastors are simply laymen who are incapable of presiding over a true Eucharist.  However, another school of though is that a better translation would be "incompleteness", which leaves open the question of whether Lutheran pastors are ordained enough, so to speak, to celebrate a valid Eucharist.
I comment:
But to focus on the matter of “orders,” seems to detract from the nature of the sacrament, and put the essence of the sacrament of the issue of whether the one presiding is “properly” ordained. I seem to recall that the international Lutheran-Catholic dialogs have found a way around this. But in experiential reality, I think I see that most people don’t care whether you are a Roman Catholic priest or a Lutheran pastor. They don’t see the one presiding, they see the sacrament itself.

I basically agree with you.  But there are segments of Roman Catholicism that do "put the essence of the sacrament on the issue of whether the one presiding is 'properly' ordained".  They may or may not be a majority, but they can be vocal.  Hopefully, further dialogue will lead to greater consensus.

Peace,
Jon

[MaddogLutheran]

Because of our Lutheran sensibilities, I think we may not be hearing what JEdwards is reminding us about:  there's a reason Rome, in its official documents, refers to us a ecclesial communities and not churches.   The uncertainty about whether our clerics are properly ordained, according to their doctrinal standards.  It's not an abstract academic issue...it goes to their definition of "church", which is why they do not address us as one.

You leave the most difficult issues in a negotiation for last.  Rome can tolerate doctrinal differences with other churches and recognize a partial state of communion with them (Eastern/Coptic/Chalcedonean) because it recognizes them as churches.  Western Protestant denominations, not so much.  For them, a church is not defined by doctrine, but first and foremost by its bishops being in an unbroken succession from the apostles, who teach that doctrine.  Rome does not, and cannot, separate the nature of the sacrament from who is presiding.  That's a Protestant view diametrically opposed to their understanding of church.

Whether Catholic laity understand this distinction doesn't matter much, so opinion polls are not really helpful.  If Rome were to simply adopt our views, it would destroy the foundation of their faith and result in a huge schism.  I'm not saying that artful compromise isn't possible.  It's just more likely to come from both sides recognizing our ordained clergy as no longer deficient, perhaps with additional "corrective actions".  But many of us witnessed what that can look like from the original ELCA Concordat with the Episcopal Church. 

[James_Gale]

Jon Edwards writes:
If so, then (from the RC perspective), Lutheran pastors are simply laymen who are incapable of presiding over a true Eucharist.  However, another school of though is that a better translation would be "incompleteness", which leaves open the question of whether Lutheran pastors are ordained enough, so to speak, to celebrate a valid Eucharist.
I comment:
But to focus on the matter of “orders,” seems to detract from the nature of the sacrament, and put the essence of the sacrament of the issue of whether the one presiding is “properly” ordained. I seem to recall that the international Lutheran-Catholic dialogs have found a way around this. But in experiential reality, I think I see that most people don’t care whether you are a Roman Catholic priest or a Lutheran pastor. They don’t see the one presiding, they see the sacrament itself.

Within the ELCA, NALC, and some other Lutheran bodies, I agree with you that most today don't care whether the presiding minister is Roman Catholic or Lutheran or from some other church body.  (I don't know whether this also is true within the LCMS, WELS, and other Lutheran bodies.)  I think that the number of Catholics who would care is substantially higher.  This isn't really surprising.  Lutherans focus on the utterance by the presiding minister (in Lutheran practice, sometimes a lay person) of Christ's Words of Institution.  For Catholics, according to their Catechism, "the bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop's name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. . . .  Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop of him to whom he has entrusted it."  (Paragraph 1369)  "Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord."  (Paragraph 1411)


That said, the language quoted by JEdwards (which mirrors language in the Catechism) makes plain that the Catholic Church views Holy Communion within "ecclesial communities" (such as Lutheran churches) as a rite that possesses some of the beneficial elements of the Sacrament as practiced in the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches.


Some Catholics no doubt believe that Lutherans practice fully valid and legitimate Holy Communion.  Some probably view everything we do as an abomination.  The official view, it seems to me, is that our practice of Holy Communion is incomplete but still somehow sanctified by the Holy Spirit for the good of Christians who are separated from Rome (and the Eastern churches).