Ship of Fools: 1517

Thread: 1517 Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020047

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

That is the years most Protestant Churches date the beginning of the Reformation. The Moravians would go a little earlier with John Hus. Anglicans came a little later. Over the last few years Lutherans and Anglicans have declared fellowship. Reformed and Lutherans have reached general agreements; even the Methodists have opened their pulpits to other denominations.

Recently the Pope meant with Lutheran World Federation leaders affirming a common path forward. He has also met with Anglican leaders with the same open arms.

Lutherans and Anglicans are meeting with Orthodox leaders and are finding many points of common ground. And Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders are also working towards better relations.

So, the question is: do you see any more work that needs to be done among the liturgical/mainline churches before there is at least an informal union?

And a follow-up question: how do we find faternity with the more radical/non-liturgical fellowships?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

My understanding is that meetings like these have been going on for a long time. I applaud churches getting along, but am leery of union. Bells and Smells and sung liturgies forever!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Not all Lutherans.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The problem I see it is that the Anglican church is struggling to stay together itself, with the divergence of views and opinions. So how there can be an expectation of any meaningful form of agreement/unity with other churches at a denominational level is beyond me.

I think the "meaningful" part is important. The CofE and RC churches can quite happily say "we won't slag you off by name from the pulpit. Or at least our senior clergy won't", but that is about all, and some churches will still continue to do so regardless.

At the same time, at a local level, churches do often co-operate. So I really wonder what the purpose of this ecumenical process is at the denominational level.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem I see it is that the Anglican church is struggling to stay together itself, with the divergence of views and opinions. So how there can be an expectation of any meaningful form of agreement/unity with other churches at a denominational level is beyond me.

Does the Anglican Communion have to hold together for the Concordat between the Episcopal Church in the US and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to hold together? In the US, the various protestant denominations are basically all national churches. TEC is tied to other churches of its kind through the Anglican Communion, but the other protestant churches here tend to be at most in loose association with other churches of their kind.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

To what extent are denominations in the US still ethnic churches? Are virtually all Lutherans, people descended from those who migrated from Germany or Scandinavia, Catholics from those who migrated from Ireland, Italy, Poland, Mexico etc., Orthodox from those who migrated from Greece or Eastern Europe, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, those who migrated from the British Isles (possibly longer ago). Or to what extent is this no longer relevant?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think TEC has long gone it's own way, stretching the rest of Anglicanism (for better or worse). The problem is that TEC is more of a sub-demonination - this all came out when the issue or Women Bishops was being "discussed", that the US can ordain women as bishops, and more traditional places can tut. When the See of Canterbury does it, churches have to consider whether they can stay in the communion.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

everyone needs bishops in tatctile succession.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
everyone needs bishops in tatctile succession.

Why

Succession is so much more than touch.

Jengie

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
everyone needs bishops in tatctile succession.
Why

Succession is so much more than touch.

Jengie

Sacraments are physical, material - touch is physical, material.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It will happen organically. And not just from the leadership. Out of necessity. I have observed before that in the prairie provinces in Canada, we already share hospital chaplaincies, our church buildings, retreat centres, attend each others' churches, take communion. We jointly fund things. We don't have the ethnic definitions, the historic structures, the boundaries are loose. As they need to be to meet people's needs first.

It is likely that if you're from southeastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba, you will be attending Ukrainian Catholic or Russian Orthodox churches. If you're from north of Saskatoon, south of Prince Albett, Mennonite. If you're from one community in the north, you'll be RC, another Anglican or United. All because it's the only local show. If you move, you'll change denominations.

Thus I think the rift healing will come from the reality people face. This week, we have an Anglican priest moderating community discussions sponsored by the RCs at the RC cathedral by Mennonite presenters about the ethics of war with an RC archbishop and a baptist as panelists. Does anywhere else have stuff like this?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This week, we have an Anglican priest moderating community discussions sponsored by the RCs at the RC cathedral by Mennonite presenters about the ethics of war with an RC archbishop and a baptist as panelists. Does anywhere else have stuff like this?

I think this sort of thing happens in a lot of places: guest speakers, panel discussions on important topics and current events, etc. There's a greater interest in what other denominations are doing and how they are managing needs and issues common to a lot of churches.

I think this might lead to greater cooperation in certain areas, like social services, but not greater union between churches. For that I think you have too look at what's going on internally in the different churches, and what's going on among the broad groups of denominations.

I think the Mainline Protestant churches are going to have a tough next 2 or 3 decades. They are declining, and I think that's where you might see some realignment, first by sharing resources, and then some sort of unified structure or structures, even if they're very loose kinds of confederations. I also think the more liberal and conservative (for want of better terms) ends of these churches are going to stay in tension, and it might lead some of these groups (probably the conservative ones) to split away.

I don't know how much more us Catholics are able or willing to approach reunion with other churches. The Mainline churches have gone increasingly farther from our historic beliefs, The Eastern Orthodox have their own issues to work out and can't even agree on a council. I think ecumenical relations will remain important and parish and diocese will continue cooperating with other denominations on the local level but otherwise I see ourselves more and more concerned with our own stuff and the big ecumenical stuff will increasingly get overshadowed.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
everyone needs bishops in tatctile succession.
Why

Succession is so much more than touch.

Jengie
Sacraments are physical, material - touch is physical, material.

There are two aspects to continuity. There is that of action and that of intention. The break can happen in the second as much as in the first. To focus solely on the first by Catholic and Anglican churches I would argue means they overlook their own breaks in the second.

Jengie

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
everyone needs bishops in tatctile succession.
Why

Succession is so much more than touch.
Sacraments are physical, material - touch is physical, material.

Soundwaves are just as physical and material as touch.
Ordination to the priesthood is a sacrament.
Consecration to the episcopate is not.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That is the years most Protestant Churches date the beginning of the Reformation. The Moravians would go a little earlier with John Hus. Anglicans came a little later. Over the last few years Lutherans and Anglicans have declared fellowship. Reformed and Lutherans have reached general agreements; even the Methodists have opened their pulpits to other denominations.

.....

And a follow-up question: how do we find faternity with the more radical/non-liturgical fellowships?

EVEN the Methodists? [Disappointed]

Methodists are among the most ecumenical lot in the world; Methodist/Reformed pairings are the most common in the world*

Though when it comes to Methodists, there is the United Methodist Church in the US and then there is everyone else.

*Second only to Presbyterian/Congregationalist pairings, which may not count as ecumenical, depending on who you ask.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I was surprised at 'even the Methodists' too ...

Meanwhile, following a point from up-thread, Canterbury has allowed female bishops. The first in the UK is in the diocese where I am.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I've posted on another thread about the interchange of ministries etc. between the C of E and various Lutheran churches, under the Porvoo and Meissen agreements.

IJ

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That is the years most Protestant Churches date the beginning of the Reformation. The Moravians would go a little earlier with John Hus.

If justification by faith is the signature doctrine of the Reformation, neither Hus nor Wycliffe taught it, and even Luther's Ninety -Five Theses, the posting of which in 1517 is understood as the beginning of the Reformation, don't mention it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Ordination to the priesthood is a sacrament.
Consecration to the episcopate is not.

Yes it is!

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

Basically, there is going to be a lot of meeting between bishops of different traditions. They´ll talk about some subject where both denominations have historically disagreed, and then write a document stating that they forgive each other and come to the conclusion that both have always believed the same thing, but worded in different ways, so they should have never fighted at all.

Communions of churches like the "lutheran world federation" are very, very far from representing anything remotely confessional. They are not bothered by doctrine and stuff that historical protestantism was. What matters is only their social agenda (gender issues, "eco-justice", undermine any distinctively christian aspect of their member churches, etc).

I reckon many denominations are going to merger at some point, despite any doctrinal disagreements that might have existed, out of necessity. Think of TEC and ELCA: 2 denominations that are basically falling apart in terms of membership, and where the remaining congregants are average 65+ years old. They obviously have to merger at some point to keep themselves in the map. And what about "United Church Of Christ", I heard they are in talks about merger with Unitarian Universalists (which are not even christian). The mainline United Church of Canada is one where there seems to be a movement of openly atheist ministers and congregations. I reckon all these ultraliberal denominations might merger at some point and form some kind of institution of social work, before disappearing.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

I'm not sure the merger of (most of) the Presbyterians, the Methodists and Congregationalists into the Australian "Uniting Church" has been as successful as hoped. A multiplicity of voices and traditions is maybe stronger (and even more Biblical) than a single voice of compromise. Separate institutions and traditions is not the same as enmity. Jesus did not make Peter into Thomas, or Paul into John.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

As an Anabaptist, I come at 500 years since the Reformation with a slightly different perspective.

Just as likely to happen as all the unity discussions:

8 years from now lots of Christian groups will unknowingly celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Radical Reformation by breaking up even more into smaller and smaller groups.

We live in a world where freedom of conscience has been very important - that tends to work out itself as people making decisions to find like minded and thus separate themselves from others. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing actually. I remain unconvinced that unity is more important then people finding themselves somehow praising God.

Unfortunately, the rise of aggressive group think within civic religions expressed in the form of populism threatens freedom of conscience. It is really hard to be accepting of others when people not only consider you an idiot, unChristian and not worth talking to because you voted for one candidate or another, or one way on a referendum or another, but also actively denigrate and abuse you for sticking your head out beyond accepted populist norms.

There's a reason why my theological forefathers decided to just go quiet on the land but spent 400 years moving across Europe, North, Central and South America. Sooner or later, somebody doesn't accept what you think and how you want to practice life. Easier to go somewhere else for awhile.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That is the years most Protestant Churches date the beginning of the Reformation. The Moravians would go a little earlier with John Hus.
If justification by faith is the signature doctrine of the Reformation, neither Hus nor Wycliffe taught it, and even Luther's Ninety -Five Theses, the posting of which in 1517 is understood as the beginning of the Reformation, don't mention it.

When I lived in the Czech Republic, there was a view that the Germans had come late to the Reformation and then tried to take all the credit for it ...

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

ISTM that the United Church of Canada showed the way by doing a formal gathering of Methodist, Presbyterian and assorted other smaller denoms in 1925.

The reason for this move was the sparse population of the Prairies of Western Canada, which could not support individual church buildings and ministers in every community. What no prophet describes is just the same process continuing in a present-day configuration: even the RCs and Orthodox now recognise that they could get to be very lonely if they don't come and sing some hymns together with others.

SPK might want to add to this point.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Eh? The door is always open.

And that Atheist Minister is now an Atheist Ex-Minister. And she went off the rails after she joined her last congregation, so don't blame it on them.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That is the years most Protestant Churches date the beginning of the Reformation. The Moravians would go a little earlier with John Hus. Anglicans came a little later. Over the last few years Lutherans and Anglicans have declared fellowship. Reformed and Lutherans have reached general agreements; even the Methodists have opened their pulpits to other denominations.

Recently the Pope meant with Lutheran World Federation leaders affirming a common path forward. He has also met with Anglican leaders with the same open arms.

Lutherans and Anglicans are meeting with Orthodox leaders and are finding many points of common ground. And Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders are also working towards better relations.

So, the question is: do you see any more work that needs to be done among the liturgical/mainline churches before there is at least an informal union?

And a follow-up question: how do we find faternity with the more radical/non-liturgical fellowships?

The work that needs to be done is for Presbyterians and Episcopalians to find a way to reconcile their views of ministry. (I write from a North American perspective). An awful lot would fall into place if that happened.

[ 21. January 2017, 02:19: Message edited by: sonata3 ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I would prefer to avoid the 'great men' style of history. Changes and developments usually emerge for many reasons, and when the time is ripe, if it isn't Martin Luther, or James Watt or the Wright brothers, someone else will be along soon to do the job.

I would think that you could see the Reformation as the result of the development of printing, the waning of Medieval monarchy, and the growth of a trading class across Europe; perhaps you could even be as specific as to identify textile merchants.

The Reformation, then (and this must include the Counter-Reformation), can be seen as a series of attempts to identify the heart of Christianity and work out how it is best expressed in a changing world. In other words, what everyone does here and elsewhere. It happened to start with protest at the Catholic Church (how could it be otherwise?), but soon it became apparent that this was about all Christians, churches and Christian cultures trying to adapt, engage, and function well in a growing and changing world.

I don't think formal unity is ever going to be on the cards. We're not repairing a split or splits in the 16th Century, we're trying to be Christians today in ways that are congruent with a world that won't stop still. Change, variety, reform are now for ever around, within and between us.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I would prefer to avoid the 'great men' style of history. Changes and developments usually emerge for many reasons, and when the time is ripe, if it isn't Martin Luther, or James Watt or the Wright brothers, someone else will be along soon to do the job.

I would think that you could see the Reformation as the result of the development of printing, the waning of Medieval monarchy, and the growth of a trading class across Europe; perhaps you could even be as specific as to identify textile merchants.

The Reformation, then (and this must include the Counter-Reformation), can be seen as a series of attempts to identify the heart of Christianity and work out how it is best expressed in a changing world. In other words, what everyone does here and elsewhere.

Huzzah for your first 2 paragraphs. The unifying great man theory of History grew out of post war military thinking and has been ignored by most historians for the last 20 years. And everything I read back in uni oh so many years ago, and since, indicates that the economic reasons for the reformation were much greater then any theory about individual greatness.

Your 3rd paragraph has me thinking. I agree with your sentiment. But, the Reformations were also attempts to come to terms with what it meant to identify the heart of Christian states and to settle the way people within those states should believe.

We by and large no longer live within Christian states. The struggle to identify the heart of Christianity is different now and includes

those trying to maintain the state as Christian as possible(see many US evangelicals who support Trump and many of us who wish governments would not do certain things)
those who have given up on the state and are just trying to do the best they can

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
That is the years most Protestant Churches date the beginning of the Reformation. The Moravians would go a little earlier with John Hus. Anglicans came a little later. Over the last few years Lutherans and Anglicans have declared fellowship. Reformed and Lutherans have reached general agreements; even the Methodists have opened their pulpits to other denominations.

Recently the Pope meant with Lutheran World Federation leaders affirming a common path forward. He has also met with Anglican leaders with the same open arms.

Lutherans and Anglicans are meeting with Orthodox leaders and are finding many points of common ground. And Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders are also working towards better relations.

So, the question is: do you see any more work that needs to be done among the liturgical/mainline churches before there is at least an informal union?

And a follow-up question: how do we find faternity with the more radical/non-liturgical fellowships?
The work that needs to be done is for Presbyterians and Episcopalians to find a way to reconcile their views of ministry. (I write from a North American perspective). An awful lot would fall into place if that happened.

I always recommend the "Curry Connection"; Get the Churches of North and South India involved at every Presbyterian ordination until everyone is consecrated as a Bishop, and then wait until everyone is properly "infected". Voila, problem solved.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

There's a huge difference between engaging in friendly dialogue, and participating in joint ventures, from potlucks to social justice projects, on the one hand, and having the sense that we are in some variety of agreement about what we are doing inside the church. Speaking as Anglican, I know that on Sunday morning there is a broad spectrum of opinion when we are at prayer, and that spectrum explodes in all directions when you start to throw others into the mix. How can we reach across when many of us are in doctrinal disarray within? And that's not being doctrinaire, that's a practical question.

I'm all in favour of all denominations into the conversation, but we each have our bugbears to overcome. As much as some Anglicans quietly yearn for union with the RCs, for me that would be a deal-breaker, for reasons theological and historical (and before someone pillories me, I say that as someone who as a child had a Catholic woman who was a tremendously positive influence on my spiritual life).I would end up going Lutheran, while other Lutherans might go Methodist, etc.

As much as it might be devoutly to be wished, I don't see it in my lifetime, with a few decades yet on my clock.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0