To check out Pastor Schooping’s fine piece in this summer’s Issues, Etc. Journal. He served as an Orthodox priest for some five years and now he is a Lutheran pastor. Here’s a link (it takes a while to load).
Hi Pastor! I have a question concerning the validity of sacraments officiated by a clergywoman? This question is massive for me as I'm investigating a vocation for priesthood in the Church of Sweden. Aside from other aspects of the problem - what is the status of the eucharist officiated by a woman? Do the consecration take place? I specifically have CA VIII in mind; "Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men." In the Swedish translation "evil men" is translated as "ungodly". I certainly do not think clergywoman are any of those things, but I think you understand the point relating to this question. / Your brother in Christ, Lucas.
Thanks for bring this article to our attention! I've been listen to Joshua Schooping for quite sometime and I'm very much glad he's found a home in the LCMS.
Lucas, Lutherans have split opinions on this question. One group holds that a woman can only administer the Eucharist as a layperson, and that since there is no lay consecration of the Sacrament, all such Eucharists are invalid by nature. Others hold that while it is wrong and an act of disobedience to God to ordain women, nevertheless through the Word God continues to be gracious and so the sacraments they administer are valid. Which of those is correct is something I’ve never been able to decide, because I honestly see the arguments on both sides. It’s just a classic case of the uncertainty that results in the church whenever we depart from the Lord’s mandates and come up with some bright ideas of our own.
I think that's a good conclusion. Our tradition is a bit vague on the nature of the Holy Office and ordination. On the one hand you have Luther quotes as the following; "We are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior." (AE 36:116).
And on the other hand you have the Apology not hesitant to call it a sacrament. What I've not been able to figure out is if ordination just is for the right order in the church, or if it gives the person the spiritual "ability" to consecrate? Thinking in lines of spiritual gifts tied to laying on of hands as in 2 Timothy 1:6 and 1 Timothy 4:14.
I would not say that it gives a special “ability” to consecrate, but it confers the special “authority” to do so. The ability is and resides in the One Priest, Christ, and His almighty Word. But who does He authorize to speak that Word on His behalf? That is the question.
Well put Father! Does that mean that when a pastor retires he returns to being a laity? That seems to be the opinion in Pieper/Mueller's "Christian Dogmatics". I find that to be uncatholic.
Actually, the pastor never ceases to be a member of the laity, the royal priesthood of baptized believers. But, no, “retired” pastors continue to serve our churches as pastors, and are accorded the title Pastor (priest) too.
Pr. Weedon, somewhat related to the question of the validity or authority of the ministry of the mainline churches, but I’ve seen the quote, attributed to St. Gelasius float around: “Some persons taking the place of others does not constitute succession. Rather, it is the perpetual consensus of doctrine, which joins later people to earlier people by the bond of faith.“ I am more interested in the source of this quotation, and if you, or somebody else, know it.
AI says: Pope Gelasius I’s writings are essential for understanding his views on ecclesiastical authority and succession, particularly in the context of maintaining the true faith and proper transmission of doctrine. Although the exact phrase “Some persons taking the place of others does not constitute succession” is not directly found in his extant works, we can infer his views on legitimate succession from certain passages in his letters.
Key Passages Reflecting Gelasius’s Views:
1. Letter to Faustus of Riez (Epistola 13) • In this letter, Gelasius discusses the issue of heresy and schism within the Church, stressing the importance of maintaining doctrinal purity. He emphasizes that those who deviate from orthodox teachings, even if they hold ecclesiastical office, are not true successors of the Apostles. He writes: “For those who stand outside the Church, no matter what ecclesiastical dignity they may have assumed, cannot be counted among the successors of the Apostles or the teachers of the Church if they have fallen away from the true faith.” This passage reflects his belief that true succession involves more than merely holding an office; it requires fidelity to the apostolic faith. 2. Letter to the Emperor Anastasius (Epistola 12) • In this letter, Gelasius outlines the primacy of the Roman See and its role in maintaining the true faith. He argues that the Roman Church, being the see of Peter, must ensure that those who succeed to ecclesiastical offices are faithful to the apostolic tradition. Gelasius states: “The See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has received a primacy over the universal Church, so that no one, however exalted in dignity, could stray from the path of apostolic tradition without being judged by it.” Here, Gelasius connects true succession with adherence to apostolic tradition, indicating that occupying an office without maintaining this tradition is not true succession. 3. Against the Pelagians (Fragmenta Gelasiana) • Although not a letter, in his writings against the Pelagians, Gelasius insists that those who hold to heretical teachings, even if they claim to be bishops, are not legitimate successors. He writes: “It is not enough to possess the name of a bishop or to hold the position if one does not adhere to the rule of faith handed down from the Apostles.” This reinforces his view that succession is not merely about holding an office but involves a commitment to the authentic teachings of the Church.
Summary:
Pope Gelasius I’s writings consistently emphasize that true ecclesiastical succession is more than just a transfer of office. It requires maintaining the apostolic tradition and the orthodox faith. The legitimacy of succession is thus deeply tied to doctrinal continuity, and any deviation from this disqualifies someone from being considered a true successor, regardless of the office they hold. These principles are reflected in his letters and other writings as he addresses issues of heresy, schism, and the integrity of the Church.
Pastor, I have a question regarding saints. I understand the theology behind the lutheran view of saints, but not the practice. Lutheran often refer to, for example, St Augustine or St Jerome. We use the title "saint" for prominent persons in Church history which have been canonized, but never when speaking about prominent lutherans. I find this very confusing, like we acknowledge the roman/orthodox definition of sainthood. The unfortunate result is that it can seems like "sainthood" (as used in Rome) is legitimate, but does not occur in our tradition. What would be your take on this? Is it just tradition to call the church fathers (etc) saints? Why do not lutherans speak about Luther in a more reverent way? St Martin of Wittenberg would be great if you ask me. Historically "doctor" has been seen as the respectable title applied to Luther. Sincerely Lucas.
Dear anon, although Lutherans have no formal way to recognize saints (as Rome does), there is certainly no problem with referring to St. Martin Luther or St. Martin Chemnitz or St. Johann Gerhard or St. Valerius Herberger. It’s just our common mode of speaking to reserve the term for those who are further distant from us in time.
13 comments:
Hi Pastor! I have a question concerning the validity of sacraments officiated by a clergywoman? This question is massive for me as I'm investigating a vocation for priesthood in the Church of Sweden. Aside from other aspects of the problem - what is the status of the eucharist officiated by a woman? Do the consecration take place? I specifically have CA VIII in mind; "Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men." In the Swedish translation "evil men" is translated as "ungodly". I certainly do not think clergywoman are any of those things, but I think you understand the point relating to this question. / Your brother in Christ, Lucas.
Thanks for bring this article to our attention! I've been listen to Joshua Schooping for quite sometime and I'm very much glad he's found a home in the LCMS.
Lucas, Lutherans have split opinions on this question. One group holds that a woman can only administer the Eucharist as a layperson, and that since there is no lay consecration of the Sacrament, all such Eucharists are invalid by nature. Others hold that while it is wrong and an act of disobedience to God to ordain women, nevertheless through the Word God continues to be gracious and so the sacraments they administer are valid. Which of those is correct is something I’ve never been able to decide, because I honestly see the arguments on both sides. It’s just a classic case of the uncertainty that results in the church whenever we depart from the Lord’s mandates and come up with some bright ideas of our own.
I think that's a good conclusion. Our tradition is a bit vague on the nature of the Holy Office and ordination. On the one hand you have Luther quotes as the following; "We are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior." (AE 36:116).
And on the other hand you have the Apology not hesitant to call it a sacrament. What I've not been able to figure out is if ordination just is for the right order in the church, or if it gives the person the spiritual "ability" to consecrate? Thinking in lines of spiritual gifts tied to laying on of hands as in 2 Timothy 1:6 and 1 Timothy 4:14.
I would not say that it gives a special “ability” to consecrate, but it confers the special “authority” to do so. The ability is and resides in the One Priest, Christ, and His almighty Word. But who does He authorize to speak that Word on His behalf? That is the question.
Well put Father! Does that mean that when a pastor retires he returns to being a laity? That seems to be the opinion in Pieper/Mueller's "Christian Dogmatics". I find that to be uncatholic.
Actually, the pastor never ceases to be a member of the laity, the royal priesthood of baptized believers. But, no, “retired” pastors continue to serve our churches as pastors, and are accorded the title Pastor (priest) too.
Thank you Father! I'm so grateful for the work you and LCMS are doing for providing solid Lutheranism!
Thanks for the heads up! I just finished reading pastor Schooping's fantastic book, "Disillusioned."
Pr. Weedon, somewhat related to the question of the validity or authority of the ministry of the mainline churches, but I’ve seen the quote, attributed to St. Gelasius float around:
“Some persons taking the place of others does not constitute succession. Rather, it is the perpetual consensus of doctrine, which joins later people to earlier people by the bond of faith.“
I am more interested in the source of this quotation, and if you, or somebody else, know it.
AI says: Pope Gelasius I’s writings are essential for understanding his views on ecclesiastical authority and succession, particularly in the context of maintaining the true faith and proper transmission of doctrine. Although the exact phrase “Some persons taking the place of others does not constitute succession” is not directly found in his extant works, we can infer his views on legitimate succession from certain passages in his letters.
Key Passages Reflecting Gelasius’s Views:
1. Letter to Faustus of Riez (Epistola 13)
• In this letter, Gelasius discusses the issue of heresy and schism within the Church, stressing the importance of maintaining doctrinal purity. He emphasizes that those who deviate from orthodox teachings, even if they hold ecclesiastical office, are not true successors of the Apostles. He writes:
“For those who stand outside the Church, no matter what ecclesiastical dignity they may have assumed, cannot be counted among the successors of the Apostles or the teachers of the Church if they have fallen away from the true faith.”
This passage reflects his belief that true succession involves more than merely holding an office; it requires fidelity to the apostolic faith.
2. Letter to the Emperor Anastasius (Epistola 12)
• In this letter, Gelasius outlines the primacy of the Roman See and its role in maintaining the true faith. He argues that the Roman Church, being the see of Peter, must ensure that those who succeed to ecclesiastical offices are faithful to the apostolic tradition. Gelasius states:
“The See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has received a primacy over the universal Church, so that no one, however exalted in dignity, could stray from the path of apostolic tradition without being judged by it.”
Here, Gelasius connects true succession with adherence to apostolic tradition, indicating that occupying an office without maintaining this tradition is not true succession.
3. Against the Pelagians (Fragmenta Gelasiana)
• Although not a letter, in his writings against the Pelagians, Gelasius insists that those who hold to heretical teachings, even if they claim to be bishops, are not legitimate successors. He writes:
“It is not enough to possess the name of a bishop or to hold the position if one does not adhere to the rule of faith handed down from the Apostles.”
This reinforces his view that succession is not merely about holding an office but involves a commitment to the authentic teachings of the Church.
Summary:
Pope Gelasius I’s writings consistently emphasize that true ecclesiastical succession is more than just a transfer of office. It requires maintaining the apostolic tradition and the orthodox faith. The legitimacy of succession is thus deeply tied to doctrinal continuity, and any deviation from this disqualifies someone from being considered a true successor, regardless of the office they hold. These principles are reflected in his letters and other writings as he addresses issues of heresy, schism, and the integrity of the Church.
Pastor, I have a question regarding saints. I understand the theology behind the lutheran view of saints, but not the practice. Lutheran often refer to, for example, St Augustine or St Jerome. We use the title "saint" for prominent persons in Church history which have been canonized, but never when speaking about prominent lutherans. I find this very confusing, like we acknowledge the roman/orthodox definition of sainthood. The unfortunate result is that it can seems like "sainthood" (as used in Rome) is legitimate, but does not occur in our tradition. What would be your take on this? Is it just tradition to call the church fathers (etc) saints? Why do not lutherans speak about Luther in a more reverent way? St Martin of Wittenberg would be great if you ask me. Historically "doctor" has been seen as the respectable title applied to Luther. Sincerely Lucas.
Dear anon, although Lutherans have no formal way to recognize saints (as Rome does), there is certainly no problem with referring to St. Martin Luther or St. Martin Chemnitz or St. Johann Gerhard or St. Valerius Herberger. It’s just our common mode of speaking to reserve the term for those who are further distant from us in time.
Post a Comment