Marquart, from *The Church* p. 161, 162. He is speaking about the statement of the Augsburg Confession that our churches teach that no one is to preach, teach, or administer the sacraments without a regular call, or being called according to rite (i.e., called and ordained):
First of all it is necessary to understand that it is not here a question of "cannot" - in a sacerdotalist sense - but of "may not," in the sense of the divinely established evangelical order in the church. It is an evangelical axiom that the ministry derives its validity from the Gospel, and not vice versa (Phil. 1:15-18). The minister therefore does not "make" the sacrament by some occult powers inhering in his person or office, as distinct from the rest of the people of God. Rather, as his title, "minister," indicates, he merely serves Christ and His people by "administering" the sacraments Christ Himself makes through the continuing efficacy of His words of institution. The minister's function is strictly instrumental: "The person adds nothing to this Word and office commanded by Christ" (Tr. 26, German). Or, in Luther's famous remark of 1533:
For our faith and the sacrament must not be based on the person, whether he is godly or evil, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or an impostor, whether he is the devil or his mother, but upon Christ, upon his word, upon his office, upon his command and ordinance. (AE 38:200)
So long as Christ's words of institution are allowed to stand unperverted (see FC SD VII,32), the means of grace retain their own inherent validity and efficacy. Thus even where, as in the case of women, purported ordinations are null and void, because they are contrary to God's Word, sacraments celebrated by such persons are not to be regarded as invalid per se, but as disorderly and schismatic, that is, as having been done by private, uncalled persons.
76 comments:
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Amen. I especially appreciate this sentence: "So long as Christ's words of institution are allowed to stand unperverted (see FC SD VII,32), the means of grace retain their own inherent validity and efficacy."
Therefore the sacraments stand on no other ground of confidence than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
I firmly disagree. With all due respect to Prof Marquart, I will choose St Ignatius of Antioch over him:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
That is not to ground the sacrament on the character of the man; it is to recognize that a man's call from Christ to stand in the place of Christ at the altar is an integral part of the promise of Christ that is the basis of the sacrament. If we do not respect the necessity of that call, we are presuming to receive the promise in terms other than those on which the promise was given. That is not our place.
Prof Marquart's reasoning empties Augustana XIV of its force.
I have been reading Elert's Eucharist and Chrurch Fellowship in the First Four Centuries and found these quotes to be very interesting.
The Sacrament "is not constituted horizontally by men being gathered together, but rather by a higher authority independent of them, that is, vertically." and
"Those who participate in eating the same bread are together the body of Christ. They do not produce this body. The body of Christ is there before they are and before what they do."
Also on the role of womanhood from Schmemann, "In fact, however, all our attempts to find the 'place of woman' in society (or in the Church) instead of exalting her, belittle woman, for they imply too often a denial of her specific vocation as woman."
In my reading of liturgical history and theology, I have found nowhere, except for Martin Luther, such great emphasis placed upon the words of institution in order to constitute the efficacy or the presence of the sacrament. Where does this come from? I am not asking, what consecrates, but where does this emphasis upon the words of institution as the sole means of sacramental consecration and presence come from?
Well put, Pr. Weedon. Would you agree that the point you have made is equally applicable to the modern fad of communion assistants? AC XIV does not speak only of consecration of the elements. The word "administer" is misunderstood in modern English as only meaning supervision and direction. In the original Confessional languages and history this was meant to refer to the delivering of the Sacraments by the hand of the ordained only.
Today, the pastor has sadly become more like a supervisor rather than the one who actually does all that which properly belongs to the office of holy ministry. This "administrator" concept has led to a perversion of the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers."
Where would PLI be if we returned to the intended meaning of AC XIV? Down for the count!
Bryce,
I *think* you can find something akin (at least regarding the Eucharist) in Thomas (Summa, Question 78):
I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood." Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.
In this, Thomas is running with the same sort of thinking that you can find in Ambrose (Mysteries, par. 52):
But if the blessing of man had such power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: "He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created." Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.
Nyssa seems to hint at something along the same lines too in Chapter 37 of his Great Catechism. And of course there is the section of Chrysostom quoted in the Formula.
FWIW.
Chris,
If we remember that the bishop as described by Irenaeus was the president of the local eucharistic assembly who could hunt up folks by name, he seems more to equate with what we term the local pastor than a far distant administrator of a diocese who checks in now and again with local communities. What is utterly puzzling to me (and has been for years) is the open ended nature of "or someone designated by him." Now, I know everyone presupposes he means the presbyters. But it is striking then that he did not say: Or a presbyter appointed by him. The clear sense is that the bishop is authorizing the eucharist and stands behind it, but who is actually celebrating? I *think* I've seen someone say that it may even, at this stage, have been a deacon! Have you come across any discussion of that?
Erich,
I know that Marquart would disagree. The last paragraph in the same chapter notes:
Purely assisting functions, such as reading printed sermons in the pastor's absence, or helping him with the distribution of the Sacrament (as distinct from consecrating or deciding who may be admitted to the Lord's Table), may of course be delegated to suitable laymen.
Now, I do note, that Marquart thereby rules out having a layperson distribute our Lord's body, since that is the decisive act of admittance to the Table.
This is the full quote from St. Ignatius in his Letter to the Smyrneans:
You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.
It seems to me there are two important points to consider. First, Ignatius wrote this well before the Constantinian era late in the first or early in the second century, at a time when the churches were smaller. As the church grew and the diocesan structure developed (the great church historian Jaroslav Pelikan has some interesting observations on this in his acclaimed book "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism") the bishop would not, of course, be able to celebrate the Eucharist with every congregation.
He does specifically mention the threefold offices of bishop, presbyter and deacon so I would be surprised if deacons were authorized to celebrate the Eucharist on behalf of and in union with the local bishop. It seems even at this early stage the three offices were already specifically present, which Catholic and Orthodox Tradition would, of course, uphold.
As far as lay Eucharistic ministry goes I think that lay Christians were permitted to take the Eucharist home to those who were ill or absent from the liturgy, so should that have any effect on modern lay Eucharisit ministry?
Just wondering.
My point in bringing up St Ignatius was not to argue for episcopacy. (I can and would argue for it, but that is for another discussion.) Among us Lutherans, the parish pastor serves in the role of bishop, and I accept that.
My point was that the rite vocatus is not an "add-on" to the promises of Christ, but that it is part of them. Christ not only commanded and promised the ministry of Word and Sacrament, but also appointed and sent those men who were to carry out that ministry in His name and by His authority. The mission He commanded and the authority to carry out that mission are not two separate promises; they are two aspects of the same promise.
If I have no call to act in Christ's name and by His authority (and I haven't), then if I presume to do so, there is no reason to believe that I carry His authority, even if I mouth His words. That is what St Ignatius was talking about, and it has nothing to do with whether the bishop shepherds a parish Church or a diocese.
Chris,
The question, though, I was hoping for your opinion on is what you make of "or those authorized by him" or however that thing gets translated. Any thoughts?
Yes, I do have a couple of thoughts -- one speculative and one a bit more grounded in actual history.
The bishop himself would normally be the celebrant, but it is also clear from the early writers (such as Hippolytus, I think) that it was customary for the presbyters (his "council of advice") to gather at the altar with him and "con-celebrate". I can well imagine that when the bishop was unable to be present, whether from illness or from having been arrested and awaiting martyrdom, the senior presbyter ("eldest of the elders") might celebrate in his place. I doubt whether anyone were ever allowed to celebrate in the bishop's place when the bishop was present.
So far my speculation. But when we look at what happened historically, at a certain point (even before the peace of the Church, when Christians were still subject to persecution) the Church grew too large for all believers in one polis to gather in one congregation. At that point, rather than multiply the number of bishops (and compromise the principle of "one bishop in one polis"), the sacramental ministry was delegated to the presbyterate -- as a regular thing rather than an occasional expedient.
It is plausible to think that the presbyters were chosen for this "permanent" delegation because it had long been the custom for presbyters to be delegated this ministry on an occasional basis. All of this is merely plausible, rather than certain; but it is, to my mind, the most straightforward reading of the available history.
I suppose in principle the bishop's delegation of the celebration of the Eucharist could remain "open-ended", and anyone who was duly authorized by the bishop could celebrate. But in practice I think the ecumenical canons and the liturgical directions of the Typikon have narrowed the bishop's authority in this regard.
Just you go ahead and authorize a layman of your parish to celebrate in your place, and let us know how that goes over!
Christopher,
You know that there is zero chance of that happening in any parish for which I am responsible - nor for that matter would it happen in my District. Pastor Mueller will not tolerate in the parishes here even a vicar celebrating the Sacrament. But you know how it goes elsewhere...
I agree that your read is the most plausible and the one I would likely go with to, but it is still an odd way of putting the matter. You'd expect a more specific "or *a presbyter* authorized by him."
TOO!!!! Grr.
"The bishop himself would normally be the celebrant, but it is also clear from the early writers (such as Hippolytus, I think) that it was customary for the presbyters (his 'council of advice') to gather at the altar with him and 'con-celebrate'."
As a side question, something I've wondered for a while: Is there any Lutheran precedent or practice of concelebration (apart from the ELCA declaring communion fellowship with the Anglican Church)? Perhaps in Lutheran churches with episcopal polity?
Christine,
Dr. Tighe sent a delightful book that touches on the practice: A Detection of Aumbries by Dom Gregory Dix. It was apparently utterly common in the early centuries for the laity not only to take home the Holy Sacrament (usually only under the species of the consecrated bread), but even to offer it to those who were in need of it!
I'm not sure how that really connects with the more modern phenomenon of Eucharistic minister except on the surface. The Eucharistic minister of today carries the Sacrament from the altar to those unable to be at the celebration. The laity in years gone by took it home to nibble on each day - that each day Christ's body might be received.
Dear Anon,
I honestly am not aware of any practice of concelebration in Lutheranism. At St. Paul's, however, when both pastors are present, we both vest in chasubles, though only one of us chants the words of consecration. The rationale behind this was to combat the notion that the pastorate was merely a set of functions. Thus, even though the assisting pastor is not actually the mouth used for the consecration, He is vested in such a way as to declare that the Church recognizes his calling also to speak those words in the public, responsible administration of the Eucharist.
Pr. Weedon:
Christopher Jones said "If I have no call to act in Christ's name and by His authority (and I haven't), then if I presume to do so, there is no reason to believe that I carry His authority, even if I mouth His words. That is what St Ignatius was talking about, and it has nothing to do with whether the bishop shepherds a parish Church or a diocese."
You deftly dodged commenting on these words, which certainly seem to go against the main post. Do you agree with Christopher here, or do you agree with Prof. Marquart?
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
Dear Father Gregory,
I agree with Marquart. It's why I posted his words. In another internet discussion a friend had pointed me to them and I thought them quite helpful.
Which is not to say that I am without sympathy to Christopher's argument, but I think ultimately Marquart's explication is that of the Lutheran Symbols themselves, especially taking the Tractatus (26) as the explication of the AC XIV.
I would note however that the citation I originally gave was merely a selection from a larger section in which he categorically states:
In light of the above, it should be perfectly clear that being 'properly called' means much more than simply being asked or invited or "authorized" to "conduct services" on one or more Sundays. To be properly called in the sense of AC XIV is to have been found personally and theologically qualified, and to have been solemnly entrusted by the church - and life-long, not "till further notice" - with the divinely established Gospel ministry, and this in some particular field of service for so long as it shall please God. (p. 160)
And following the citation I provided Marquart adds:
In the public, official services of the church, however - as distinct from "private" domestic, or the "public" political domain - no individual may take it upon himself to administer the communal treasures without proper authority, i.e., the divine call. "Lay-preaching" on the basis of the priesthood of all believers, is a distinctively Methodist notion, and can claim no support in Luther's evangelical Reformation. (p. 162)
What both Christopher and Marquart and I agree on is that no person who lacks a regular call has any business administering the Sacraments of Christ in the Church.
The best book that I have read which helped me understand the development of the 3 fold office of the priesthood is by Aidan Nichols and is entitled "Holy Order: The Apostolic Ministry from the New Testament to the Second Vatican Council". It is hard to get a hold of but well worth it. I don't have a copy myself but had to borrow it from a friend.
Bryce,
I'll have to see if I can locate it. Sounds good. As long as it is seen as a development, no argument or problem. What I think Piepkorn was right about is that a subsequent development cannot overthrow the NT equation of the presbyterate and bishopric (Timothy ORDAINED by the laying on hands of the presbytery, for example). Also, the solid history that Piepkorn presents - numerous examples of presbyteral ordination across the early church and medieval West. The usual way (bishops ordaining) and the best way (bishops ordaining) is one thing; the ONLY way (bishops ordaining) is another.
WW:
"What both Christopher and Marquart and I agree on is that no person who lacks a regular call has any business administering the Sacraments of Christ in the Church."
Rx:
So what do you do ecclesially when that happens? (Note: *do*, not *say.*)
Tupaf,
FG
Fr. Gregory,
I have never seen it done . If I did, I would not commune and would seek to explain to the person who did so that it was a violation of the order witnessed by the confession of our churches. I would also seek to address the matter through my own District President with their District President. As I told Christopher, my District President clearly views it as a violation of our Symbols. Above all, I would pray for those involved for God to bring them to the joy of repentance.
The argument Chris Jones states is pretty much what I was taught in the RC church as the Scriptural basis for the for the bishop/priest/deacon roles in the RC ordained priesthood.
But to carry over my last point in the Angst thread, I think it does not really address the issue to simply come to agreement about the structure of the office. Or in other words, if we agree that, for example, the fullness of the ordained priesthood is the bishop, his stand-ins as it were are the priests, and their service aides are the deacons, do we then fulfil Scripture simply by designating such offices in our church?
Or in yet another way: if Pastor Weedon and I both vest and conduct a divine service with communion; is mine invalid because I have no call to do so and his valid because he does, or are both of us playing dress up because neither of us is properly ordained and therefore neither marked with a sacramental grace transmitted from the Apostles, so no amount of chasubles, rites or calling oneself priest or Father can make it so apart from that?
That to me is the real question here. If the answer is the latter, then the swimmers of the Tiber or the Bosphorus are doing the right thing, because no amount of human abuse can override the divine rightness of the order, and the rest of us ought to quit playing dress up and follow suit. But if the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying over with nonsense of what is simply the process by which the church selects her ministers, then indeed we have the catholic church pruned of its non Scriptural superstitions and self serving hierarchical power plays.
I stand with the latter.
Terry (I take it that's ok with you, then), you wrote:
"But to carry over my last point in the Angst thread, I think it does not really address the issue to simply come to agreement about the structure of the office. Or in other words, if we agree that, for example, the fullness of the ordained priesthood is the bishop, his stand-ins as it were are the priests, and their service aides are the deacons, do we then fulfil Scripture simply by designating such offices in our church?"
Rx: At one time, I would have thought so. But I came to see the Church as a living organism, a body; and Christ's bride doesn't get plastic surgery. So, no, it wouldn't fulfill Scripture simply to add those things on.
TM:
"Or in yet another way: if Pastor Weedon and I both vest and conduct a divine service with communion; is mine invalid because I have no call to do so and his valid because he does, or are both of us playing dress up because neither of us is properly ordained and therefore neither marked with a sacramental grace transmitted from the Apostles, so no amount of chasubles, rites or calling oneself priest or Father can make it so apart from that?"
Rx: I don't know what you're playing; neither do I know what is going on when you do. God has even worked through the mockery of an actor to bring someone to faith, as I mentioned in a post a week or so ago; so God can do anything.
I only know that the time came, for me, when it was clear that Lutheranism was dead. I recognized that even if everything I did in my own parish was according to the Confessions, that I was in communion fellowship with those who did lay absolution/consecration, used grape juice etc. At that point, I was duty-bound to leave for the Church. One does not leave secure job, pension, and friends simply for the smell of incense.
To those who have not yet reached that point: well and good; fight out the battle as long as you can. At all costs, avoid the relativism which says about things like lay consecration/absolution, "That may be right for you in your parish; but this is right for me in my parish."
To those who have reached it: "it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience," as a wise German monk once said.
The unworthy priest, and fool,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
Thank you, Pastor Weedon. The last comment by Father Gregory has demonstrated in all its starkness the danger of the hidden clause. I am horrified that my faith could have been elsewhere than in the Word itself, or rather, Himself.
Fr. Gregory,
Do you really think that we are espousing relativism? I know you have brought it up more than once. I've honestly not heard anyone say: "It's okay for you; not for us."
Just for the record, let me say it again: The laity assuming the responsible administration of the Sacraments in our churches is an *abuse*. It needs not rationalizations, but repentance.
To call for repentance, to witness against the practice, to pray for those who engage in it and above all for those who espouse it, that is not (to my understanding, at any rate) the path of a relativism. Marquart suggests the basis to discuss this that removes any hint of clericalism and still holds fast to the simple truth witnessed in AC XIV.
Pastor Esget,
It is striking where the hidden clause ends up taking you.
Pr. Weedon,
I have heard you *say* it again and again. Calling, witnessing, praying--all of these things are words.
What is less evident is the *action* you're taking. Indeed, the silence and lack of action among "confessionals" is one of the most striking contrasts between this year's upcoming convention and the one three years ago.
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory
PS--by the way, what is this "hidden clause" you're referring to?
Robb, you are both a hypocrite and a false teacher. You would do well to attend to the corruptions in your own so-called "orthodox" church. What actions did *you* take when the head of an Orthodox Church took part in a pan-religious worship event in the national cathedral in Washington, DC?
The converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, or those or considering it, don't seem too concerned about the great internal contradictions within Orthodoxy, every bit as serious as there are within Lutheranism. I recall for instance watching as the head of one of the Orthodox communions in this country attended a service in the National Cathedral in Washington, DC at which event there was worshiped Allah, the Jewish god, and of course the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity was acknowledged. The Gospel was explicitly ignored as a part of this service, and thereby denied. I was assured that the Orthodox primate prayed in the name of Christ. I was told he was bearing witness, etc. I was told that in Eastern Orthodoxy there is discipline of errant clergy. And then I wondered who might "discipline" this head of an Orthodox church in America. I've learned that throughout the lands of Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia and other places, for example, the sin of abortion is deplored privately but they simply "don't talk about it" much at all. But, we are assured, this is not a doctrinal problem, it is a matter of practice not conforming to doctrine. But wait a minute! Isn't this precisely what upsets them so about Lutheranism, as they regard it? They tell us our practice doesn't follow doctrine well enough. So, that's bad when it happens in Lutheranism, but it's acceptable when it happens in Orthodoxy. Why? Well, you will finally hear that all that matters is that Orthodoxy has a historic liturgy and in that historic liturgy this is where you find the wonderful doctrine, because, as we are told, Orthodoxy is not an idea, it is a living reality as witnessed in its liturgy. But...don't look too closely at that liturgy, for you will find any number of ant-Apostolic features, including admixture of faith and works, prayers to saints, etc. Are you more than a little puzzled? Join the club!
Dear Paul,
Congratulations to your daughter on the swimming honor she recently received. I wanted to send you a note when I read it on your blog, but the post was taken down.
I accept your testimony that there are great internal contradictions within Lutheranism. WRT the "services" you're speaking of, what constitutes worship in the Orthodox faith is not drawn the same as it is in Lutheranism. For Lutherans, it's perfectly conceivable to have "worship" made up of ad-hoc, extemporaneous gatherings. For the Orthodox, worship is chiefly eucharist, and also the services of the Church which have been appointed and prayed since the early days of the Church, but not these ecumenical 'gatherings'. (Of course, worship isn't even drawn the same within Lutheranism; just ask a WELS about joint prayer with other Lutherans.)
You've offered here a textbook case of ad hominem, combining abuse and tu quoque in the same post. May I use it the next time I teach logic?
The unworthy priest, fool, and hypocrite,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
Yes, Robb we know that nothing is a worship service unless and until the Orthodox priest has on the right fancy duds and performs the proper prancings about.
However, most everyone else on the planet can recognize a thing for what it is: people in a large church building, singing hymns, praying prayers, reading Scripture and "scriptures" and hearing sermons.
You continue to offer with this lame line of argumentation a perfect illustration of my point, and for that, I thank you.
Robb, don't you have your call to attend to as an Orthodox Priest? You have left. Would you therefore just go?
Funny how they say they have left, but the never really do.
Dear Paul,
I don't derive my notion of what constitutes a worship service from "most everyone else on the planet." I prefer to stay with the consensus of the holy fathers and hierarchs of the Church.
Perhaps it's not enough for you to control the feedback on your own blog, that makes it feel like you must control others' as well. Sorry. That's got to be frustrating for you.
The unworthy priest, and fool,
Fr. Gregory Hogg
"PS--by the way, what is this "hidden clause" you're referring to?"
I don't know about anyone else, but I think there's a hidden message in the "Tupaf," whatever that means.
Hi, Pr. Cwirla.
Tupaf= The unworthy priest and fool.
Fr. Gregory
So we agree: you don't get bishops in your church by starting to call your pastoral administrators bishops then looking for a good place to order up some mitres and crosiers.
As to the validity of the sacraments we may understand ourselves to be performing, it sounds much like Benedict: we can't say they are valid because what we know makes ours valid isn't present in yours, but we can't say Christ is not present in it in some way either.
The real question is still, IMHO, what is it that you think makes yours valid, and does that in fact exist. How else would one know what is "Church" to which one must go to flee the wrongs of one's eccelsial union (to use the Roman expression for churches that aren't fully Church)?
If I waited to find a church body to join where everywhere and anywhere one found its beliefs and practices observed within it, I would remain "unchurched". My original discomfort as an RC was that reality was neither in conformity with what once was the RC nor with what Vatican II actually taught. I didn't become Lutheran because WELS or LCMS is preciselty and exactly what one finds in the BOC. I left because I came to see that what I was taught pre or post Vatican II was false, and I joined both synods because I believed what I read in the BOC as a true exposition of Scripture. Belief first, not a correct church. I don't see a correct church body anywhere, not even LCMS, but I didn't join it because I thought it was perfect.
BTW you're right about WELS -- when I was WELS I wasn't supposed to so much as say grace at Thanksgiving with my LCMS relatives, let alone the Catholic ones! And here's a little secret: I did though.
Fr. Gregory,
About action, I remind myself of the words of St. Mark the Ascetic: "It is better to pray devoutly for your neighbor than to rebuke him every time he sins." What greater action can there be?
Pr. Weedon,
St. Mark the Ascetic was a monastic writer within the Orthodox Church. He is not dealing, in context, as a bishop with threats to the basic structure of the Church; he is dealing with relations among monastic brothers.
When someone attacks the doctrine or structure of the Church, he must be disciplined. The holy Fathers of Nicaea did not say, "Arius, we'll be praying for you." They booted him. This is not inconsistent wih prayer.
Fr. Gregory
Fr. Gregory Hogg, you wrote: I recognized that even if everything I did in my own parish was according to the Confessions, that I was in communion fellowship with those who did lay absolution/consecration, used grape juice etc. At that point, I was duty-bound to leave for the Church.
Do you seriously contend that you are NOT NOW in communion with some who have beliefs and practices contrary to the EO Church?
Does the EO communion really have no errorists?
Has there never been a time in history during which you would admit the EO Church itself was riddled with error, even at the highest levels of hierarchy?
Was not even the ancient church (which we all claim to be in direct lineage of) at times besieged with error within its ranks?
If not, what was the need of the ecumenical councils which were called to combat these rampant errors?
And, were those councils always called within the first few decades that the error first appeared?
Has error always been immediately identified and purged from the ranks?
Have there not been times of great patience within the ancient church and even within the later EO communion?
Why, then, should we not likewise suffer patiently as we call to repentance those in error within our ranks?
We Confessional Lutherans are not schismatics, nor do we silently tolerate error.
Your thesis that the Lutheran Church does not exist is a lie from the pit of Hell. The church of Christ exists where His pure Word and Sacraments are found. How do we define pure Word and Sacraments? - those taught and practiced according to the one pure fount and source of God's revelation: SCRIPTURE, interpreted according to the central doctrine of Christianity that separates us from ALL other religions.
What is that central doctrine? That THE ONE TRUE GOD is the God who saved me all by himself, with no help from me or anybody else. All my sins are imputed to Christ, and all His righteousness is imputed to me. That's the only God I can have faith in! The One with pure monergistic grace - something YOU now deny in joining yourself to those who boldly deny divine monergism. In that respect, I'm sorry to say you're no different than a Muslim.
I don't intend on arguing these points with you here. I personally gave your words and logic an ear far too long back before you left Lutheranism and the fellowship of your other friends here in Michigan. You almost dragged me into the pit with you, but by the grace of God this instead served to renew His gift of faith to me in the true Confession of Lutheranism, and that entirely by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word and Sacraments so richly, undeservedly, and continuously poured out upon me in the Lutheran Church at Zion-Marshall.
You are obviously free to respond to my questions and comments here on Pr. Weedon's blog. I will let you have the final word. I've said all that need be said to warn those of the true faith to beware of your "logic."
I still pray for you, Robb.
Erich
I can certainly understand the spiritual agony that comes from seeing that, even if things are OK in one's immediate surroundings or parish, one is in fellowship with many who deny in word and/or deed its teaching and/or practice, and one has no real idea what one will find inside another church with the same denominational name over the door.
That was exactly my experience as an RC after Vatican II. I believed and practiced what I was taught before the Council. After, much of what I was taught to believe and practice seemed to directly contradict what I was taught before, though they loudly denied anything had really changed. Moreover, even if one accepted that, much of what I heard taught and saw practiced in the "spirit" of Vatican II had little to no basis in the actual documents of Vatican II. The result being, apart from a happy accident in this or that particular place, what one found was neither what was there before nor what was supposed to be there now.
However painful this may be to experience, it does not amount to a matter of faith, does not amount to a doctrinal decision, even when one suspects that these things should not be happening in the church if it is true. If I still believed what I did in my youth, I would to-day affiliate myself with the Society of St Pius X, which teaches and practices precisely and exactly what I was taught as the Roman Catholic faith, not with St Mark Lutheran Church (LCMS). If I believed what I was taught after the Council, I would to-day affiliate myself with the parish two blocks down the street to which I am supposed to belong (ironically also named for Pius X!), and depending on whether or not I really took the documents of Vatican II seriously or not console myself with watching EWTN, not with St Mark Lutheran.
But that is not what happened. Had my beliefs not changed, I would remain where they are at least officially taught and fight the good fight, as many "traditional" Catholics (eg SSPX) or "conservative" Catholics (those who hold to real Vatican II rather than its "spirit") do. My beliefs changed. That's the key; that's the point. And it is at that point that one leaves discussion of abuse in the church.
There is no religion in the world nor subgroups within them that does not have these same abuse problems, including differences on doctrine and practice. For example Judaism, now split into Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, with further division within them. And all of these groups having their faithful fighting the good fight even within their own denomination. This is a human phenomenon, not a religious one, and not a specifically Christian one. But one stays in any of them because one's belief remains the same. That's my point. Somewhere along the line, belief must change to go.
For me it didn't happen all at once but over twenty some years. First it was coming to know that I flatly do not believe the Catholic faith as taught by Vatican II, neither what it actually teaches nor what is taught in its "spirit", because it is at variance with (what I saw at the time as) the two ways in which the one Truth is revealed, Scripture and Tradition. (For life-long Lutherans, that's as in Apostolic Tradition, not tradition as in the way we've "always" done things.) Then it was coming to believe that what I had believed was wrong too or it would have carried the promise of Christ that it would endure, enduring not being theological gymnastics of how there can be Popes and Councils that are point blank heretical by the church's own lights. At that point, Christianity itself fails, other Christian churches being what of the Catholic faith they accept with the rest filled in by whatever they accept additionally.
This is the point where what happened with me seems to be different than with at least the other converts to this or that I read about and encounter on blogs. These conversions happened within a context of ongoing Christian faith, as a step toward being more fully and truly Christian. Not so with me.
Maybe that's why, much as I get the struggle with abuse in doctrine and practice, conversion ultimately is a matter of change in belief. When I was an RC, that's how I saw Luther too -- he validly protested abuses in his day, but when that lead him to doctrinal change he went wrong. Abuse is one thing, and may even lead one to explore doctrine, but ultimately, a conversion is a change in doctrine, a change in belief, without which one stays where one is and fights the abuse. But having converted, it's all about belief, all about doctrine.
I'm not a Lutheran because I believe the RC church, pre or post council, is full of abuse or doctrinally wrong, and the other churches in varying degrees tag along with it. There was over twenty years between believing that and professing the Lutheran faith in 1996. I am a Lutheran because, as I read the Book of Concord while taking (to use the old RC term for it) instruction in the Lutheran faith in a WELS parish, from page to page I heard the truth of Scripture faithfully exposed and explained, and in my case from the ground up, not just about the Christian church but Christ and Christianity itself. Ten years later I joined LCMS, not because of abuse in WELS, though it is there, and not because I thought LCMS was perfect, which it manifestly isn't, but because of that same belief in what is taught in the BOC as a true and accurate exposition of Scripture which I hear more clearly taught in LCMS. I did not join LCMS because I believe in LCMS, nor did I profess faith in LCMS when I joined.
If I could rule LCMS by ecclesiastical fiat, a lot would change! Not only would those who derive their understanding of what they are doing from Saddleback or Willow Creek or some such thing find themselves outside the synod, but the, IMHO, even more dangerous and injurious adaptation of an heretical church's (post conciliar Rome)new form of worship conforming to their further descent into heterodoxy as equally historic along with the reform of the real historic liturgy we already have would be immediately expunged from our service books!
But it's not about children's sermons, individual cups, grape juice and praise bands, which I do not object to per se, nor is it about DS One and Two and the three year lectionary and calendar, which I would eliminate root and branch, nor is it about services whose main thing is all about how I feel about what Jesus has done rather than what Jesus has done itself, which I completely object to.
It's about faith, or as it was put on the Angst thread, wherein does my final confidence lie. My final confidence -- not that there aren't many sub issues and side issues along the way, but at the end of the day, to use the current expression, wherein does my confidence lie. For that my answer is with Dr Heidenreich (though we may vary on a few side and sub issues, or not) -- His gift of faith to me in the true Confession of Lutheranism, and that by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to one truly simul peccator et justus, as is my parish and synod.
And I'd still like to hear what role, if any, the Lutheran bodies within the Eastern Rite played in these EO conversions. Those heading to Rome clearly embrace Vatican II Rome, not "historic" Rome.
Generally I post late at night. Apparently I am even more wordy when posting after getting up early. I ask your indulgence (no pun intended), brothers and sisters.
Dear Pastor,
You wrote: "The minister therefore does not "make" the sacrament by some occult powers inhering in his person or office, as distinct from the rest of the people of God."
Lets try to put that in a way that is not quite so perjorative and see how it sounds:
"The minister therefore does not "make" the sacrament by some powers given and promised by Christ inhering in his person or office, as distinct from the rest of the people of God."
If you put it that way, rather than suggesting the power was in some sense "occult", I would ask: "Doesn't he?".
Dear David,
Just to note that I did not write what you quote: Dr. Marquart did. But I think he is correct. I would say that your substitution of "by some powers given and promised by Christ" misses the mark. I would refer you again to the words of St. John Chrysostom cited in Formula. The minister, called and ordained, is called to be an instrumental cause but never an effective cause (which always remains the original institution of Christ Himself which He promises to be effective to the end of the age).
Now, I've spoken in Aristotelian terms and probably got them all botched up! But does the above make any sense? There can be an illegitimate instrumental cause, but the effective cause remains always and only Christ's speaking.
And isn't that really at the heart of what Aquinas says in Summa Theologica 78:
"...it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ."
P.S. I REALLY like your new pic!
I think you did get Aristotelian terms a bit botched up, as you say. Aristotle speaks of 4 causes:
1. material, that "out of which" a thing is made (e.g. the marble of the statue);
2. formal, that which makes a thing to be what it is (e.g. the shape of the statue);
3. final, that "for the sake of which" a thing is made (e.g. a statue is made, say, to remind us of the man whose likeness it is);
and
4. efficient, that "by means of which" a thing is made. In the case of a statue, it would principally be the sculptor and secondarily the hammer and chisel. These, the hammer and chisel, are also called instrumental causes. But the point is that instrumental causes are a subcategory of efficient cause.
In saying that a priest is an instrumental cause, it means that Christ is doing the work (the Orthodox show that clearly by using the passive--e.g. "The servant of God x is baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). But that does not mean that the priest is optional for the sacrament. To allow for layfolk to do, for example, the eucharist is just as much despising the institution as to use grape juice.
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory
Thanks, Fr. Gregory! I should have gone to St. Catharines and had you for class.
I'll put it this way, then, and hopefully it is clear:
Only those in the office of the holy ministry are to administer the Eucharist in the Church, however the Eucharist is what it is solely by virtue of our Lord's institution and, to quote Thomas, those in the office do nothing to perfect this sacrament except to speak the words of Christ.
the Eucharist is what it is solely by virtue of our Lord's institution ...
But the appointment of specific persons to the apostolic ministry is part of our Lord's institution. If someone to whom apostolic ministry has not been given is celebrating the sacrament, our Lord's institution is not being followed. How then can we claim to be relying on His promise?
... and, to quote Thomas, those in the office do nothing to perfect this sacrament except to speak the words of Christ.
True; but they speak His words in His name and by His authority. The right to speak in His name and by His authority is His to give, not ours to claim. When we say that one who has no call to the apostolic ministry cannot (not just "should not" but "cannot") celebrate the sacrament, that does not mean that the apostolic minister has any power of his own. It means that he has the authority to do it from the Saviour (not from himself); and the layman (or laywoman) does not have that authority.
Chris has a point there. But this is something we simply don't have to deal with if we all agree that we wouldn't take the Sacrament from such an individual who isn't called and ordained. And I think we do all agree on that point.
That's why I brought up the issue of communion assistants, because in that case "Confessional" Lutherans seem to have given in to the idea that "administer" simply refers to the consecration of elements, and not the "reichen" of the Sacrament.
Your response to me in that regard, Pr. Weedon, was that Marquart would disagree. I'm not so sure he would at the present time, knowing he is more enlightened than all of us where he now rests. :-)
But that really wasn't my question. I didn't ask if Marquart would have agreed, but rather if the same point he made (person doesn't affect validity of Sacrament) IS equally applicable to communion assistants in light of a proper understanding of the word "administer" in AC XIV.
Now, back to Chris's point. We do believe as Lutherans that the private unbelief of an individual in the office does not affect the validity of the Sacrament when it is carried out publicly according to Christ's institution. However, this does not address the affect a person who is not called and ordained has, if being "administered" by a called and ordained man is, indeed, integral to the institution.
Chris,
The analogy that a friend uses to explain this is that God's order and institution is for children to be the product of marriage. Children can, of course, result outside of the institution of marriage. For such to occur the parents have to have had illicit, illegitimate sexual relations, but those relations were "valid" nonetheless in the sense that they still produce what sex was designed to produce.
Another example he gave: we all have the power to kill. We can pick up a gun and end someone's life. Murderers use this power illegitimately. Soldiers and executioners use it legitimately. But the result is the same: a person is dead. The power to kill was "valid," if you will, in either case.
Erich is quite right, though, that we are (I think!) all agreed that we would never receive the Sacrament from someone to whom God had not given the authority to consecrate through call and ordination. The fact that something may be "valid" does not invite our collusion in any way in the sin of presuming to administer that which God had not called the person to administer.
FWIW.
Just Ignorant Questions, no Answers
Is it true that the Lutheran confessions define the Church as where the pure Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments are rightly administered?
If so, is this an absolute? Or are they degrees?
If it’s an absolute, how can any congregation on earth (for very long) qualify?
If there are degrees, how pure does a congregation have to be? Is this spelled out?
How long does one wait for abuses to be corrected before concluding, “This is no longer Church”?
Where is the line between abuse and apostasy? When can we say it has (or has not) been crossed?
By the Lutheran definition(s) of “Church”, would the Church at Corinth have qualified? Certainly the Holy Communion was not being rightly administered. (Or do you have a narrower or more technical definition of “rightly administered” by which the Corinthians would have squeaked by?) And it very much appears that the Word was not being well preached, either. Except by St. Paul, who wasn't present most of the time; is that enough?
Love,
Anastasia
More ignorant questions
Is the practice of a lay person administering the sacraments due to a shortage of clergy?
If so, why not just ordain the lay people doing it? Wouldn't that be preferable, even if they haven't been to seminary? Is seminary absolutely required in an emergency? Are there correspondence or on-line courses such people could take, even if they didn't earn a degree?
We do that in emergencies. One Russian bishop, who had lived through the Revolution, said, "They made me a bishop and in no way was I worthy of the office but I was the only one left alive who could read and write."
How long are you supposed to wait for some group to correct its practices before cutting off altar and/or pulpit fellowship with it? Is there any set time? If not, what would make a good criterion? What would make it clear?
Anastasia
Anastasia,
There is a sad history in the answer to your questions, and there is no simple and quick response. I have barely had time to glance at the computer today (but I have had the joy of bringing the Lord's body and blood to shutins this morning and afternoon; studying the word with brother LCMS pastors; and am preparing to teach Genesis 3 and close the day with Compline). So if you're really up for it, I'd invite you to peruse this letter by Herman Sasse of blessed memory:
http://www.clai.org.au/articles/sasse/unitylut.htm
It's long, but it is very worth pondering to understand what's become of Lutheran unity.
"How do we define pure Word and Sacraments? - those taught and practiced according to the one pure fount and source of God's revelation: SCRIPTURE"
How is it that Lutherans keep saying this and I keep saying the Source of Revelation is the Holy Spirit, and Lutherans quickly agree, and then go right back to saying it's Scripture??? It is the Holy Sprit Who both wrote the Scripture and Who enlightens our hearts as to its true meaning. And the fundamental Revelation itself, or rather, Himself, is Jesus Christ, Who revealed God in time and in Person. Scripture is the written record par excellence of that Revelation, and can in turn trigger personal revelations to us.
Anastasia
Fr Weedon,
The analogy that a friend uses to explain this ...
The analogy is clear, but it is not helpful, because the analogy only serves to explain and clarify what your position is. But I understand what your position is already; I just think it is clearly, demonstrably, flat-out wrong! Your analogy doesn't make a wrong position right.
I understand the difference between "valid" and "licit", and I understand that you believe that a lay-administered Eucharist is valid though not licit. And I further understand that the motivation for your position is to safeguard the objectivity of our Lord's institution of the sacrament, and to locate the efficacy of the sacrament firmly in our Lord's Word and not in the character of the minister. Those are good motives.
But our Lord established the apostolic ministry just as surely (and just as objectively) as He established the Supper. Both the sacrament and the office of the ministry through which the Lord gives us the sacrament are firmly established on the basis of the Saviour's promises. Don't you see that by saying that the sacrament can be valid (though not licit) apart from the apostolic ministry, you are making our Lord's institution of the apostolic ministry less important than His institution of the Supper? and that you are making these two institutions from the Lord independent of one another? I just don't see how you can say that.
Our Confessions say that the Church can be found where the pure Word is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. But we can say that because we rely on the promises of Christ, and one of those promises is the institution of the apostolic ministry. What you are saying is that there is a promise of Christ (the apostolic ministry) that we do not need to rely on in order to recognize the Church. Your position implies that the Word can be purely preached, and the sacraments rightly administered (and therefore the Church can be found) where the apostolic ministry is not functioning in the stead and by the command of the Lord.
That is what lay administration is: the administration of the sacraments where the promise of the apostolic ministry is not present. I'm not saying that God cannot make such an administration to be efficacious -- God is not limited by His promises. But we are. Lay administration is by no means "right administration of the sacraments"; and if the sacraments are not rightly administered, how can we confess that the Church is there?
Or can there be a Eucharist where there is no Church?
Wouldn't it be consistent with the our Lutheran Confession to say that the right marks of the church tell us where the church is sure to be found, but deficiencies therein do not necessarily tell us where the church is not?
Dr Heidenreich,
... deficiencies therein do not necessarily tell us where the church is not ...
Of course -- spoken with true Khomakiovian agnosticism.
But the position that Fr Weedon (following Marquart) is taking is that the Verba themselves, apart from the apostolic ministry, are sufficient to discern the presence of the Church. They are not saying that a lay-administered Eucharist may be valid but not licit; they are saying that such a Eucharist is valid but not licit. I will agree that a lay-administered Eucharist might be efficacious, as a matter of uncovenanted grace. But that is not the position that is being advanced. The position that is being advanced is that a lay-administered Eucharist may be absolutely relied upon to be a genuine Eucharist (even though, as a matter of obedience, it ought not to be done).
Therein lies the difference between me and my esteemed friend Fr Weedon.
And in obedience to our Lord, it may not be partaken of, even though verbum accedat ad elementum et fit sacramentum.
"but deficiencies therein do not necessarily tell us where the church is not?"
Well, I don't know; the Orthodox were very recently in this very blog criticized and mocked for taking that very position.
love in Christ,
Anastasia
Chris,
If true, would your argument not be equally applicable to the sacrament of Baptism? Would you question the efficacy of a lay baptism?
I fail to see any practical application for Confessional Lutherans in this long discussion on the Lord's Supper (except with regard to communion assistants). But the question of the efficacy of a convert's prior baptism would be a different matter.
Dr. Heidenreich,
AC 7 says:
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
This is meant to be a definition of the Church, I take it. Look at the second sentence. It has 2 clauses, "the congregation of saints," and "in which the Gospel...administered." I take it that that the first phrase describes the Church by genus and specific difference--i.e.
spec. dif. genus
Church = of saints congregation
(compare)
Man = rational animal
The second phrase tells how the Church may be known: rightly taught Gospel, and rightly administered sacraments. It's rather as if I were to say, "Man is a rational animal, who speaks and makes tools."
Now, that "right administration" of the sacraments includes the fact that they are administered by someone in holy orders is seen from AC 14: No one should publicly preach or administer the sacraments unless he be rightly/ritely called. (The word "unless" has the same logical sense as "or." So the logical meaning of AC 14 is: EITHER no one should publicly preach or administer the sacraments OR he should be rightly/ritely called.)
Based on the above:
1. We know that the Church is present only if the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. (AC7)
2. The Word is not rightly preached, nor the Sacraments rightly administered, when they are done by someone not rightly/ritely called. (AC 14)
3. Therefore we do not know that the Church is present in cases when they are done by someone not rightly/ritely called.
4. The Missouri Synod, that is, its pastors and congregations (the members of Synod) understands itself to be a communion fellowship, in which there is in principle but one altar and one pulpit. This is seen in the historic practice of close(d) communion.
5. What happens at any pulpit/altar of the Synod, as a communion fellowship, happens at every pulpit/altar of the Synod.
6. Therefore the practice of lay presiding/absolving/doing the Eucharist happens at every pulpit/altar of the Synod.
7. Therefore one does not know if the congregations of the Synod are church.
##1-3 above judge the parishes that practice lay absolution/communion; but ##4-7 above judge the rest of the parishes.
Now, if you do not know of the congregations of the Synod that they are Church, neither can you know of the activities they do, that they are means of grace--since the means of grace operate only within the framework of the Church.
And that is the problem you're left with. You do not know of your congregation (judging by the Lutheran Confessional documents) that it is church.
The unworthy priest, fool, and hypocrite,
Fr. Gregory
Anastasia,
... the Orthodox were very recently in this very blog criticized and mocked for taking that very position.
Just so. But not (so far as I can recall) criticized by Dr Heidenreich who made this observation; and certainly not by me.
Dr Heidenreich,
If true, would your argument not be equally applicable to the sacrament of Baptism?
In principle, yes; but ...
... Would you question the efficacy of a lay baptism?
No, I would not.
I know that this seems inconsistent, but unlike many Lutherans I do ascribe a normative role to the Apostolic Tradition, which has always recognized that a lay person may baptize in extremis. But there has never been a corresponding notion of an in extremis Eucharist. In the early Church, priests risked their lives sneaking into prisons to celebrate the Eucharist for prisoners awaiting martyrdom; and deacons likewise risked themselves by carrying the reserved sacrament to the prisoners. But in no case did the martyrs presume to celebrate the Supper on their own (if none of their number was ordained).
Why the Church traditionally has made this exception in the case of baptism, but not in the case of the Eucharist, I do not know. But I accept it.
Dr Heidenreich,
I fail to see any practical application for Confessional Lutherans in this long discussion on the Lord's Supper ...
I am not the logician that Fr Gregory is, but I must concur with what I take to be the point of his last comment. The "practical application" of this discussion is that even if the orthodoxy and orthopraxis of one's own congregation is not in doubt, we remain in communion with congregations in our Synod who are (on this point) heterodox. If (as I believe) the basis for communion in the sacraments must be full agreement in the faith, then remaining in communion with the heterodox compromises our own confession.
I think that is extremely "practical".
Fr. Gregory,
You will remember that I am one of the few individuals whom you allowed to keep your entire paper on the subject. I know all your arguments well.
As I promised, I will not argue them all over again here.
Chris,
So, what about if the lay-baptism was not in extremis? Would you then question it? Please consider the fact that while the church has never had a significant reason to declare one way or the other on a lay-administered Lord's Supper, it has always had an important reasons to validate a lay-administered Baptism. The fact that the latter has happened and the former has not is not evidence that the former is invalid.
As for Fr. Hogg's line of argumentation, I stated that I would let him have the last word on that subject.
Erich,
What's relevant in any argument is not the person making the argument (that would be ad verecundiam), nor the person(s) against whom the argument is made (that would be ad hominem), but the position held and the reasons for that position. It seems that Chris, for one, thinks the argument I have raised has merit. I am sorry that you do not consider it worthy of response. *Knowing* an argument is not *responding* to it.
I think it's fair to say that I try to avoid ad hominems (I did make one for Pr. McCain's benefit a while back, for illustration purposes.). I have noted your implicit labeling of me as a sheep-stealer, on the other hand, on Rev. McCain's blog.
I try to stick to the issues. When discussing the situation of Lutheranism, I have tried scrupulously to stick to Lutheran sources alone. If I have failed, I welcome someone to point that out.
And if what I am saying has any merit, the experiences folks undergo in the coming months and years will prove the point far more eloquently than
the unworthy priest, fool, and hypocrite,
Fr. Gregory
Again, we should note that a lay person presiding at the Lord's Supper is always illegitimate and an abuse and it needs repentance not excuses, and Marquart was utterly clear on the point - and he was absolutely correct.
About Fr. Gregory's conclusions, I concur with Christopher that our very unity as Lutheran Christians is compromised by the tolerance in our midst of this unfaithful practice which has been among us since 1989. Convention after convention Synod has struggled with how to address it. My DP believes that there is a faithful way to do so that will come out before the convention this summer - a way that he says has the support of the council of presidents and the joint seminaries. Fellow Lutherans, let us keep it in prayer!
Not meaning to pile on, Pr. Weedon, but would the regular or optional use of grape juice in the Lord's Supper be an equally unfaithful practice? Do you know of any attempts to address this issue, either in the upcoming convention or in the future?
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory
Father Gregory,
I believe that the Synod in convention has numerous times expressed that grape juice is not to be used in the Lord's Supper, has it not? It is another one of those things that comes up repeatedly and gets the same answer over and over again: "don't do it." The congregational nature of the Synod, and the deterioration of supervision by the District Presidents, has led to many parishes ignoring the "dont' do it," of course, but then it becomes important that such be addressed in Winkels and pastoral conferences and such.
Pr. Weedon, you wrote:
"The congregational nature of the Synod, and the deterioration of supervision by the District Presidents, has led to many parishes ignoring the "dont' do it,"
Rx: It was worthwhile bringing this up, then. For once again, we find ourselves at *the issue*: in terms of that transparochial, less-than-una-sancta entity described in the Lutheran Confessions--there is no Lutheran Church.
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory
Fr. Gregory,
What we arrive at once again is your assertion that this is so. It was apparently based upon my comment that the congregational polity of the LCMS does not admit of "top down" hierarchical remedies to problems. But it ignores the very point insisted on in the Lutheran Confessions that Christ did NOT institute the episcopal polity as THE polity for His Church, for the very distinction between presbyter and bishop upon which it depends is absent from the NT witness. Christ DID institute the office of the ministry to preach that Gospel through which the Holy Spirit is given and faith is bestowed. He DID institute the gathering of His people into congregations to receive and live from His gifts. And we have these. We are truly Church - even with all the sin and mess and muck.
And that is why we can look beneath all the Orthodox sin and mess and muck too and know and rejoice that here also there is Church: for the sinners in the sacred ministry in her jurisdictions also impart the saving Gospel and sacraments to the poor sinners who constitute her fellowship. We see much added that we can obscure that Gospel - particularly the hyperdoulia given to the Blessed and Most Holy Virgin, but the foundation itself remains.
And now we're chasing our tails in a circle again, and at the very heart of the disagreement is that we do not agree together about what "church" is, for you could never concede that at its core it is a fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts. And THAT is the foundational teaching explicated in Ap which explains what AC VII/VIII means.
"...you could never concede that at its core it is a fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts."
The following are sincere questions, not meant as digs.
What DO Lutherans do with Eph. 1:23? Take it metaphorically? Even if it is a metaphor, must not the reality to which it refers be an even more inimate union than the metaphor is able to describe?
How, then, can Lutherans say the Church is a mere "fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts"?
Anastasia
Pr. Weedon,
That the NT does not distinguish between presbyters and bishops (let us grant for the sake of argument) does not imply that that Christ did not institute the episcopal polity as the polity for his church.
1. In the first place, it assumes that presbyters were primary, and that bishops arose out of the presbytery. But since the nascent church was spread city by city, and would always begin with one parish, it is more natural to assume that the presbytery arose out of the episcopacy, as the growing church began to have more than one parish per city. It is a more natural reading of the NT itself to see the episcopacy as of divine right, and the presbytery, initially a council for the bishop, taking on some of the bishop's tasks with his blessing. Once again, see the letters of Ignatios.
2. In the second place, it assumes that the Holy Spirit stopped his work with the penning of the last words of the New Testament--as if when we can't find a certain bible verse to support a thing, we are completely free to organize it as we like.
But when we deal with something like the episcopal polity, which is both early (Ignatios assumes it in 107 AD--Ignatios, who worked in the same time as St. John himself) and universal (there is no pre-Reformation body in the world which does not govern itself by bishops), there is no reason to attribute it to anything other than the work of the Holy Spirit. "If this thing is of God it will succeed," said Gamaliel; and his words bear wider application.
3. The notion that you have the office of the ministry has itself become suspect, given that you have de facto abandoned its necessary instrumental role in the eucharist--a thing which your foundational document itself would abhor. What Christ instituted as necessary, you have made in practice *not* necessary; hence what you call ministry cannot be what he calls ministry, because they do not share the same feature (necessity). Missouri, by the testimony of its own chief theologian, has become a "unionistic fellowship."
4. By defining the Church at its core as a "fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in hearts," you have left out both means of grace and ministry from the definition of the Church--ministry, which you yourself said that Christ himself instituted. (Note that the AC itself does not omit these things--see AC 7, 8, and 14). Is it any wonder that you have such problems with the means of grace, with church and with ministry?
5. As to hyperdulia, it is difficult to imagine how we can offer more honor or praise to the Theotokos than Scripture itself does by calling her the "mother of the Lord," "blessed of all generations," "the ark of God's might" and "woman clothed with the sun, and the moon and stars beneath her feet." Where, exactly, in the normal Lutheran eucharistic liturgy (not just the additions you make at Hamel, but the standard LSB service) do you call her "blessed"?
Tupaf,
Fr. Gregory
Dear Anastasia,
I know they are not digs. The Lutheran understand Eph 1:23 exactly as it says: the CHURCH (the total assembly of baptized believers) is the fullness of Him who fills ALL in ALL.
She's never some PIECE, but the whole. The whole is the total assembly of those whom the Holy Spirit has joined in saving faith to Jesus Christ, so that His life has become THEIR life.
NO Lutheran says that it is a "MERE" fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit in people's hearts, but that this is what it is "at its core." They go right on to say: "We are not dreaming of a Platonic state, as some wickedly charge. But we do say that this Church exists: truly believing and righteous people scattered throughout the whole word. We add the marks: the pure teaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments. This church is properly the pillar of the truth. For it keeps the pure Gospel as Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:11. The 'foundation' is the true knowledge of Christ and faith. There are also many weak persons, who build upon the foundation stubble that will perish, holding certain harmful opinions. Nevertheless, because the weak do not overthrow the foundation, they are both forgiven and corrected."
Thus to make "pure Gospel" mean that there are no "harmful opinions" present is to present a picture that the Apology does not envision.
Fr. Gregory,
To #1, NO. It assumes that the terms were interchangeable. The Fathers admit such in their read of the NT. It should not be hard for anyone reading the NT to see that such is the case. Timothy is ordained by the presbytery. Titus is left to appoint presbyters, that is, bishop who must be such and such.
To #2, NONSENSE. It assumes that the Holy Spirit laid a foundation in the NT from which the Church has never been free to depart. If presbyters and episcopoi are the same thing in the NT, then they CANNOT be by divine right separate offices in the Church without denying that the NT is normative for the Church's teaching. Unless you want to run with Marcian (whom I know you deplore) about what it means that "He will lead you into all truth."
About #3, my "foundational document" is the Sacred Scriptures, to which the Symbols give witness. I have said repeatedly that lay eucharists are illegitimate and sinful and that no Christian ought receive them out of obedience to Christ.
About #4, you know the Apology better than that. The "core" is one thing. You know the following sentences which I cited to Anastasia above.
About #5, while not in EVERY celebration of an LSB liturgy, note that using our hymnal we will speak of the Blessed Virgin at various times:
Higher than the cherubim,
More glorious than the serpahim.
Bearer of the Eternal Word,
Most gracious.
Most highly favored lady: Gloria!
God's "pure and kingly hall"
God's "fleshly temple"
She is explicitly referred to in the collect for Christmas dawn:
"You gave Your eternal Word to become incarnate of the pure Virgin."
Likewise in the collect for Annunciation, for Visitation, for St. Mary's ("may share with her the glory of Your eternal kingdom").
She is rejoiced in the prefaces for Annunciation, Visitation, and St. Mary, and also in the second Common Preface.
Thus, she is commemorated among us liturgically, but in a way that is quite fitting with her own declarations of herself in the NT. Indeed, we join all generations in calling her blessed *because the Lord has done great things for her* and through her for us all.
Grr. Not Marcian. MONTANUS! You knew what I meant. ;)
Your response gets to a deeper hermeneutical issue, which underlies all the other discussions.
An Orthodox Christian reads the Bible in the Church, and with the Church. He recapitulates in his own experience the way that the whole Church came to receive the Scriptures: a little at a time, all the while being guided and taught the faith by those God placed in authority over him. For him, understanding is a fundamentally corporate exercise. He cannot imagine using the Bible to criticize the Church. (When he hears St. Paul say that the Church is founded on the apostles and prophets, the phrase "apostles and prophets" makes him think of the icons of their persons.) He does not trust himself to know what the Scripture means, over against the community. (That is not to say that he does not use the Bible to criticize a given teacher or bishop, of course--but not the Church.) He is delighted to hear the same things, week after week, year after year. He receives the Bible, in short, as a child. His is a hermeneutic of trust.
A Protestant (and here I include Lutherans) receives the Bible over against the Church. He views the Bible as if giving it was the last thing Christ did before his ascension into heaven. (When he hears Paul say that the Church is founded on the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone, the phrase "apostles and prophets" makes him think of a book. You speak, for example, of your foundational document being the Scripture.) For him, interpretation is a fundamentally personal and individual exercise. He is raised on tales of Luther reading the Bible for himself and using it to oppose the Church. "Bin ich allein Klug?" "Jawohl!" He does not trust the community's understanding, but wants to verify everything for himself. Fearful that the Church might neglect certain passages of Scripture, he changes her lectionary. He receives the Bible, in short, as an adolescent. His is a hermeneutic of suspicion.
On this child/adolescent distinction, I might add that in the two years since I have been an Orthodox Christian, one of the things that has struck me most is how geared to children is the Orthodox faith. Little ones are fully members of the community, receiving all the sacraments along with everyone else. The littlest babies are brought to the Savior's body and blood along with the rest of their family, and they receive with complete trust. They love the physicality of the Orthodox faith: they look attentively as I cense them; they go right up to the icons and wait patiently for Mom or Dad to hold them up so they can kiss them; they love to stand in line at the end of the liturgy to kiss the cross and receive the priest's blessing. Our littlest ones eagerly wait to help me fold my vestments at the end of church as well. All their senses--indeed, their whole body--is involved in worship: their eyes see the icons, the processions; their ears hear the Scriptures and the hymns; their noses smell the incense; they touch and eat the antidoron; they bow and do prostrations along with everyone else.
I take note of your answer to #5: "Not in every celebration of an LSB liturgy." For us, we find the Child as did the first Gentiles who sought him--in the arms of his Mother, who teaches us how to respond to him: "Let it be to me according to your Word," and "whatever he tells you, do it." She is the token, the sign, of all that God means to do in us, the people of God, the Church.
The unworthy priest, fool and hypocrite,
Fr. Gregory
Fr. Gregory,
But again we are presented with a rather platonic "church" by your statement (at least so it seems to me). You have freely granted that the teachers of the church may err. You know that frequently in the past the laity (often lay monks) have called the hierarchy to return to faithful confession. St. Cyril invites his catechumens to pass judgment on his words to this and discard any that were not found in harmony with the Scriptures. St. Augustine reminds St. Jerome that we are not bound to accept anything that is written by any writer, no matter how holy, if it is not in accord with canonical Scripture.
The Christian, then, will heed the Apostles' word to be children in malice, but not to be children in understanding (1 Cor. 14). Rather, to "test all things and hold fast what is good." This accords with our Lord's own words to "beware false prophets." The touchstone for such testing will always be the Gospel witnessed by the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, given to the Church (by which I mean the totality of baptized believers).
But again, we're likely getting nowhere in the discussion. I think I understand your position; I don't agree with it. Likely you think the exact same about mine.
I have only now become aware of this posting and comment thread, thanks to Chris Jones. I think that I will avoid all but two issues that have come up in it, as it has grown so long and involved.
The first is, I simply don't understand what Past Elder means when he asked "And I'd still like to hear what role, if any, the Lutheran bodies in the Eastern Rite played in these EO conversions?" What bodies is he talking about? The only ones of which I am aware are those small Confessionalist bodies in Moldova and Ukraine which have adapted the Byzantine liturgy to their use, an adaptation which (in my view as a Byzantine Catholic and historian) involves choppings, hackings and mutilations of an extensive sort; and I have been informed that Orthodox churchmen in those countries regard these bodies with the same feelings of hostility and contempt with which "Uniates" were regarded in 17th and 18th Century Muscovy.
Secondly, concerning St. Ignatius's word about the celebration of the Eucharist by a man appointed to that task by the bishop, I think that one might conceivably argue that it might have been delegated to deacons as well as presbyters, although inconclusively. On the one hand, it is difficult to see why, a priori, presbyters rather than deacons were the more "suitable" as celebrants, given how the deacons individually were the right-hand men of the bishop, in ways that the presbyters of the corporate presbytery were not, and given how deacons in Spain and in the East (Bithynia) seem to have taken it upon themselves to celebrate the Eucharist when there was no bishop during the Diocletianic persecution. On the other hand, the practice was subsequently reprehended by various synods in the most emphatic and categorical terms, with deacons who had done so threatened with deposition or excommunication AND there is no evidence whatsoever for similar celebrations from earlier persecutions, neither is it supported by what survives of earlier ordination rites or statements of church order, whether like the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, or passing remarks; and one must not forget Tertullian's mockery of the Montanists (before he joined them; or was it the Marcionites?), how on one occasion a man functions as a bishop among them, and on the next as a deacon, and vice-versa. So I think that I am on firm ground to hold that, absent any evidence to the contrary, it is extremely unlikely that deacons were "delegated" to celebrate the Eucharist. (Possibly the reason for this was that the deacons really were the personal attendants and satellites of the bishop, and their numbers were usually limited, to the Fourth Century at least, to the "Scriptural" number of seven, whereas the presbyters were more numerous and, as congregations multiplied in cities, could be "seconded" to one or another of them in a more lasting and less ad hoc way than a deacon might be. But this is sheer speculation on my part)
Dr. Tighe,
I agree with your second point (and think I said the same thing above somewhere in this ridiculously long thread): it might perhaps have reference to the deacon, but the evidence is inconclusive. It's an odd saying in any case.
Pax!
Post a Comment