Thread: Sacraments and priesthood Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029214
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I met someone today who is not called into the priesthood, and yet he is being prompted by God's call into the sacramental ministry of presiding over the Eucharist.
This is the second time I have met such a person, the first a woman. How can this be?
In what way does God call priests into being 'set apart'?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Serious question: how does this person know?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It is possible in Anglican churches to get permission to dispense the elements, sometimes without the priest being present.
Maybe they think they are being called to do this?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Obviously, I've never met this person, and don't know what he's actually saying. Also, you have not indicated to which ecclesial community he belongs. However, I would have thought that either,
- He is not being called into either priesthood or sacramental ministry, or
- He is being called to both, but in some way he is inhibited by an oddly narrow conception of what priesthood is about.
Is it that he is RC, but feels no call to celibacy? If so, I'd agree that's a problem, as unless you're committed to a traditional RC understanding of these things, there's no obvious link that God only calls into ministry those who are also called never to marry.
Another point, which applies irrespective of one's ecclesial community, is whether he is assuming call is something wholly inner, between God and you, or whether it is something that either
- the ecclesial community can see even if he can't, or
- whatever he feels like inside, the ecclesial community can't see it.
[ 27. June 2015, 18:11: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Serious question: how does this person know?
The prompting of the Holy Spirit which doesn't leave him however much he tries to deny or ignore it.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is possible in Anglican churches to get permission to dispense the elements, sometimes without the priest being present.
Maybe they think they are being called to do this?
Maybe. But if this is supposed to be a calling specifically for priests, and he is not called into ordination, what is happening here? Does God not recognise the separation of duties?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Obviously, I've never met this person, and don't know what he's actually saying. Also, you have not indicated to which ecclesial community he belongs. However, I would have thought that either,
- He is not being called into either priesthood or sacramental ministry, or
- He is being called to both, but in some way he is inhibited by an oddly narrow conception of what priesthood is about.
Is it that he is RC, but feels no call to celibacy? If so, I'd agree that's a problem, as unless you're committed to a traditional RC understanding of these things, there's no obvious link that God only calls into ministry those who are also called never to marry.
Another point, which applies irrespective of one's ecclesial community, is whether he is assuming call is something wholly inner, between God and you, or whether it is something that either
- the ecclesial community can see even if he can't, or
- whatever he feels like inside, the ecclesial community can't see it.
It's interesting isn't it? If the call is recognised by a church, irrespective of ecclesial community, it will be expanded upon so that it will fit a category, while if it is not recognised by a church as it remains a limited calling, it must be denied.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I vaguely recall reading of the tradition of a "mass priest" charged only with celebrating the Eucharist and not licensed to preach. Perhaps this is a case where the idea needs to be restored?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I vaguely recall reading of the tradition of a "mass priest" charged only with celebrating the Eucharist and not licensed to preach. Perhaps this is a case where the idea needs to be restored?
Ah, good, it sounds as if there are precedents.
Would the Churches be open to such ideas today, do you think?
After all, many are called to preach who are not also called to preside at the Eucharist.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I vaguely recall reading of the tradition of a "mass priest" charged only with celebrating the Eucharist and not licensed to preach. Perhaps this is a case where the idea needs to be restored?
Ah, good, it sounds as if there are precedents.
Would the Churches be open to such ideas today, do you think?
After all, many are called to preach who are not also called to preside at the Eucharist.
I don't know. I think I came across it in the context of a discussion of the practice of communion by extension in remote parts of the SEC. I can certainly see some downsides in terms of what people expect of a priest and how you would manage vocations in such a way that it didn't become a consolation prize for those deemed unsuited to the "regular" priesthood.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It is difficult to say this, and perhaps difficult to read it. However, here goes.
The fact that I say 'I have a call' does not on its own trump anything at all, and shouldn't. It is not dependent entirely on my interior illumination. We are none of us entitled to say 'I have a call; because I recognise it, so must you'. There would be a profound and disturbing lack of humility about that approach.
Having said that, I have also encountered clergy who were duff preachers. Yet I would have said they showed all the markets that they were called, had been rightly ordained and had the characteristics of priesthood, both sacramentally and pastorally. I'm sure there are other shipmates who would say the same.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is difficult to say this, and perhaps difficult to read it. However, here goes.
The fact that I say 'I have a call' does not on its own trump anything at all, and shouldn't. It is not dependent entirely on my interior illumination. We are none of us entitled to say 'I have a call; because I recognise it, so must you'. There would be a profound and disturbing lack of humility about that approach.
Having said that, I have also encountered clergy who were duff preachers. Yet I would have said they showed all the markets that they were called, had been rightly ordained and had the characteristics of priesthood, both sacramentally and pastorally. I'm sure there are other shipmates who would say the same.
There's surely a place for honesty. If someone believes that he or she is being called by God into any aspect of ministerial service, they are allowed to say so without being accused of a lack of humility. I agree that it doesn't 'trump' anything, and that discernment through others is the way in which God most often affirms a calling.
The way we lump together certain aspects of service into roles perhaps doesn't mirror the way God wants it to be, so it seems to me.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
There doesn't seem to be any biblical reason why someone needs to be ordained in order to preside at the eucharist.
Luther recognised this:
quote:
If a little group of pious Christian laymen were taken captive and set down in a wilderness , and had among them no priest consecrated by a bishop, and if there in the wilderness they were to agree in choosing one of themselves, married or unmarried, and were to charge him with the office of baptizing, saying mass, absolving and preaching, such a man would be as truly a priest as though all bishops and popes had consecrated him.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes, but in Lutheran theology that man would possess the one thing that makes a pastor different from any layperson, which is a call extended by the church--in this case, his fellow desert islanders, who are asking him to serve in this way. That's a pretty profound difference to someone who feels an inner prompting but his outer circumstances are not in agreement (in this case, the church he is a part of would expect him to assume a fuller role he is not interested/willing to assume).
The reason Lutherans value the call of the church so highly is because we find it more trustworthy--i.e. we expect to see the Holy Spirit's leading when a community of Christians does something (with suitable prayer and meditation, etc.) but a single individual, no matter how pious, is easily carried away by enthusiasms that may be all too human. So "tell it to the church" has long been one way of testing whether a person is in fact being divinely called. Particularly in cases like this one, where what the person senses is a very unusual "call" of a pattern not normally seen in his branch of the church.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What has God got to do with this? With our grandiose, sexist OCD? What emperor's clothes of meaning can we ascribe to this?
I would have said that He meets is where we are regardless, but that doesn't wash any more.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is possible in Anglican churches to get permission to dispense the elements, sometimes without the priest being present.
Maybe they think they are being called to do this?
'Dispensing' the elements is not the same as presiding.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
The NT knows nothing of either priesthood as an office or caste, or of sacraments (as opposed to ordinances), or of the restriction of the administration of the Lord's Supper to certain Christians to the exclusion of others.
Carry on.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT knows nothing of either priesthood as an office or caste, or of sacraments (as opposed to ordinances), or of the restriction of the administration of the Lord's Supper to certain Christians to the exclusion of others.
Carry on.
Where do the scriptures speak of "ordinances" as opposed to sacraments? Where do they speak of all Christians being able to administer the Lord's Supper?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
"You".
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
You're being vague as usual, though I can probably guess what you're referring to. Still, it does nothing to prove your point.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't have to prove anything. You do. And it can't be done of course. But I have to go now. To communion.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't have to prove anything. You do. And it can't be done of course. But I have to go now. To communion.
Eh? If I have to prove something then so do you. My point was that if the scriptures don't prove sacraments or the priesthood then neither does it prove the opposite, but then the scriptures are a handbook as to how to do these things. Rather one has to look to the actual practice of the Church.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
A calling in the broad (applicable to everyone) sense is something YOU need to respond to, but not necessarily expect OTHERS to recognize in you.
If God is calling you to write music, or do landscaping, or feed the homeless - get busy. Years later others will recognize your calling through what you have already been doing.
The problem is the modern church (or at least many branches of the modern church) blocks people responding to God this simply and directly, because the church has been superimposed with a massive organization. I'm way oversimplifying and groping for how to express. Organizations have their legitimate needs, but people need to not be fixated on them.
If someone sincerely and persistently feels called to preach, they need to go preach and not narrow their focus or concept of preaching to the church organization as the only way to do that.
If someone sincerely and persistently feels called to preside over sacraments, *I* draw the same conclusion: find the people or places in need, not currently being served through the formal system, and get busy. But *I* am not one who thinks God has any interest in restricting presiders to a sliver of all Christians or thinks anyone should be without just because none of that sliver have showed up.
Too many people think a calling has to operate through a formal church - and those looking to that formal structure for their expression of calling are the worse offenders, too often using the word "calling" as if the word applies only to formal church positions. As if "I have a calling" is sufficient to say what the calling is about! Nope.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Shouldn't there be a 'not' in there somewhere?
And.
I agree. It's up to us to work it out without being exclusive, divisive, sectarian, esoteric, weird about it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Shouldn't there be a 'not' in there somewhere?
Yes.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
I would suggest that Ordination is a matter of church discipline within certain denominations and not others. If Ordination is a problem to the individual we started with, then there is the question of whether or not that individual should remain within their current denomination. If this individual is set upon presiding at a Eucharist, but not being ordained, then the answer is to join a denomination wherein ordination is not a prerequisite. Many of the local chapels around where I live would offer the facility, though the person in question would need to prove themselves fit, in the eyes of the congregation, to preside before they would be invited to do so - there will always be some sort of qualification, formal or otherwise - nobody can just walk into a church and expect to be allowed to preside at the Eucharist just like that, purely on the strength of "I feel led ..."
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Vast wisdom.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
...If this individual is set upon presiding at a Eucharist, but not being ordained, then the answer is to join a denomination wherein ordination is not a prerequisite.
A lot of callings involve the discomfort necessary for growth. Getting out of your habitual way of seeing things is often uncomfortable, some people want to stay in their familiar denomination and want the denomination to change to conform to their sense of calling.
Any maybe sometimes staying in the poor fit is exactly where you belong - it's the misfits who stayed and fought for change that got CofE and TEC to accept female clergy.
No one firm set of rules - of course; God seems to like doing things new ways.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT knows nothing of either priesthood as an office or caste, or of sacraments (as opposed to ordinances), or of the restriction of the administration of the Lord's Supper to certain Christians to the exclusion of others.
Carry on.
Even if your reading of the NT is correct, so what? The books of the NT are products of the very early years of the church. Do you do everything the way you did it when you were 18?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT knows nothing of either priesthood as an office or caste, or of sacraments (as opposed to ordinances), or of the restriction of the administration of the Lord's Supper to certain Christians to the exclusion of others.
Carry on.
Even if your reading of the NT is correct, so what? The books of the NT are products of the very early years of the church. Do you do everything the way you did it when you were 18?
No I don't but then again at 18 I wasn't inspired by God. That's rather different from the biblical text.
We have layered a lot of church practice with tradition - none more so than the Eucharist which has had a "priestly" caste involvement from the very early years. Like Kaplan, I can't find any scriptural reason why the "president" of a communion/mass/eucharist service has to be a priest.
However, there is a strong argument that seems to indicate that the act itself is limited only to those who believe and therefore, anyone believing and present is qualified to "preside" in the sense of praying, giving thanks and participating generally.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
No I don't but then again at 18 I wasn't inspired by God. That's rather different from the biblical text.
We have layered a lot of church practice with tradition - none more so than the Eucharist which has had a "priestly" caste involvement from the very early years. Like Kaplan, I can't find any scriptural reason why the "president" of a communion/mass/eucharist service has to be a priest.
However, there is a strong argument that seems to indicate that the act itself is limited only to those who believe and therefore, anyone believing and present is qualified to "preside" in the sense of praying, giving thanks and participating generally.
So you admit that the church had this practice from very early in its history (and, by the way, priesthood is discussed quite extensively in Hebrews, with Christ as the model) but because the authors of the New Testament didn't write down the details of how to conduct worship you feel at liberty to disregard it? Sola Scriptura really is a nonsense.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Yes, sola scriptura is nonsense. So is the idea that the church trumps the Bible. So is talking about the church as opposed to the churches, as if it was ever uniform. So is the idea that how to conduct worship was a settled thing down to the details, that someone could have written down.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So are priests equal to laity in the royal priesthood of ALL believers. But more so?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The only priesthood that makes sense to me is the priesthood of Jesus. (And like all titles for Jesus we need to remember that it's such a poor fit as to be pretty much a joke, and that the pairing changes the title, not Jesus.)
And our encounter with Jesus today is through the churches (though not in a direct or reliable way), and church means community, and community means people in relationship, and relationship requires equality, or at least, openness to the call of equality and moving down the road towards it. So priestliness in the churches today is a flickering emergent property of the mysterious Body. It might be associated from time to time with certain people called and set apart, but we don't control it, because it is of God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So we divide - set apart - over who can be foreman in the remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I wasn't thinking of the Lord's Supper particularly, but of whose visit makes a person feel cared for, whose word includes or excludes, whose presence can heal, whose understanding or support is felt to matter. These are priestly functions, and will often be centred in the person asked to be leader / servant, but obviously not always.
When it comes to the eucharist I think the key person is the one who irons the frilly cloths.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I hope they (the cloths, that is) have crocheted edges with "IHS" incorporated into the motif. If not, you cannot be part of the One True Church.
P.S. You also need to have a large, wooden, carved and extremely uncomfortable chair for the Presiding Minister. Ideally bits of the carving will stick into inconvenient parts of their anatomy. Without this, the Eucharist simply won't "work".
This example may fail the test by being marginally too comfy.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
We have layered a lot of church practice with tradition - none more so than the Eucharist which has had a "priestly" caste involvement from the very early years. Like Kaplan, I can't find any scriptural reason why the "president" of a communion/mass/eucharist service has to be a priest.
So you admit that the church had this practice from very early in its history
Yes of course, and Paul makes clear that from the very beginning churches got a lot of stuff wrong.
The human inclination is to rule, set up pecking orders, regard people as mostly lesser but a few greater. From the very beginning - and today - churches attract people looking to build their own turf. It takes only a small minority of this kind to dominate the larger group looking only to enjoy each other and God.
I would love to see George Orwell on churches. What word would he put on a few people wearing outrageously ornate clothes, dominating the proceeding, telling others they are forbidden to do the things he does, and claiming these all prove he is a "humble servant"?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I hope they (the cloths, that is) have crocheted edges with "IHS" incorporated into the motif. If not, you cannot be part of the One True Church.
P.S. You also need to have a large, wooden, carved and extremely uncomfortable chair for the Presiding Minister. Ideally bits of the carving will stick into inconvenient parts of their anatomy. Without this, the Eucharist simply won't "work".
This example may fail the test by being marginally too comfy.
That chair is what we call 'lookshuree'. The one I most often sit on has no carved bits, but has a steeply sloping, shiny cushion. The effort of sitting calmly at the table makes your thighs burn. So I stand.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Oddly enough, Belle Ringer, George Orwell chose to be buried in Anglican fashion ...
Not sure what that tells us. Except perhaps that he didn't object to it that much.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At the risk of being overly subjective, we have to 'speak as we find' and pick up on the cues/atmosphere etc wherever we are.
What hatless describes is, I think, the ideal at the 'better end' of his own Baptist tradition. Baptist Trainfan the same.
Those of a more sacramental bent would see things differently and those same aspects that they've described expressed in a different way - or present in a different way perhaps.
Others might say that those aspects aren't present in more sacramental or traditionally sacerdotal forms at all - or at least, less well-articulated and realised.
We can only speak as we find - and whatever our doctrinal position on these things our own experiences are going to colour things. My wife has a bit of an issue with bishops, for instance, after two snooty Anglican bishops gave her a hard time in a Christian bookshop where she once worked ... donkeys' years ago now ...
For my own part, our local parish vicar doesn't regard himself as a 'priest' in the traditional sacerdotal sense, eschews clerical garb for the most part and is about as 'low' as you can get without dropping out of the bottom entirely. He's a nice bloke but I've got to be honest - whereas he thinks that eschewing clerical garb and ceremony makes him more 'accessible' he's the last person I'd go for if I ever needed some kind of pastoral help/advice or guidance etc.
Ok - that might still be the case even if he were to dress up to the nines in copes and chausables and albs and what-not ...
But the point I'm making is very much in line with an old Greek saying ... apparently the Greek Orthodox have a saying (and you'll forgive my lack of the Greek term) which is, 'it's not the thingummy ie. whatever Greek term it is for whatever it is that Greek priests were - that makes the priest.'
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If it was an RC church across the road (and it was for as long as it hasn't been ...), I'd go. And I would comply in my invincible ignorance: I'd know my place and feel far, far LESS challenged than I do under its present ownership. As I did in Westminster Cathedral last month. What an AWESOME place. I LOVE the austerity!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I stuck my head round the door at Westminster Cathedral recently -- some kind of very high High Mass going on ... I don't know whether there was a particular reason for this but the congregation seemed very Phillipino or South-East Asian Catholic on this occasion.
I was only there for a short peek but it was pretty sharp and high-octane.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That'll be a kalimavkion that they WEAR.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I meant 'wear' not 'were'.
Thanks Martin.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Oddly enough, Belle Ringer, George Orwell chose to be buried in Anglican fashion ...
Not sure what that tells us. Except perhaps that he didn't object to it that much.
This
article tells us, among other things, that he was of a family with clerical associations, was confirmed by the Blessed Charles Gore, took the Church Times, helped refurbish church statuary, and was married and buried according to the rites of the CoE.
It appears that he was more conerned over the RCC and its connexion with Fascism in Spain and with totalitarian practice, associating the inquisitor with the Stalinist interrogator.
Generally speaking, I find it dangerous to project views on one subject on the basis of writing on other topics, but on the basis of his support of English folkways and practices (village life, the Maypole, e.g.,) I suspect that Orwell would have had a preference for the anglo-catholicism of Blessed Percy's folk-and-socialism's ritual practices over the baroque anglo-papalist version. It is unfortunate that the Statesman never asked him to review Ritual Notes.
Where's a ouija board when one really needs it?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
What an interesting article. I should say that from it, Orwell looks like a particularly strong case of 'belonging without believing' - which is certainly not the worst thing to be.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
And in terms of the OP, one cannot forget Animal Farm's dictum that, while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QB] So you admit that the church had this practice from very early in its history (and, by the way, priesthood is discussed quite extensively in Hebrews, with Christ as the model) but because the authors of the New Testament didn't write down the details of how to conduct worship you feel at liberty to disregard it? Sola Scriptura really is a nonsense.
Of course I admit it - but I wouldn't begin to say that it's a correct innovation. It's more an interpretation that's become a tradition.
I wouldn't agree either that the priesthood described in Hebrews is at all like the Priesthood we see today. For one thing, there's only one Jesus.
We do "this" in memory and in proclamation of Him but there's no restrictions on "who" does "this" nor on "how" it is done. Who and how are the stuff of tradition.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course it's the stuff of tradition. How could it be otherwise?
Even if we base things on direct 'chapter and verse' it's still tradition.
The question is whether it's small t tradition or Big T Tradition.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As an aside, I rather think that Augustine the Aleut is on the money with George Orwell - and yes, the 'belonging without believing' thing was probably a lot more apparent with the CofE back then than it is now.
I also suspect that Orwell's sympathies would have laid more with the more folky end of the Anglo-Catholic spectrum rather than the baroque and spikey end of things.
I might be wrong, but my contacts with US Episcopalians - of both the mainstream and the various 'Continuing' breakaway strands - is that they are less aware of the more 'socialist' elements within the English 'Anglo-Catholic' tradition and tend to focus more on the more Monarchist/establishment side ...
Which is rather odd when one considers that for political reasons from the time of US Independence they had more direct dealings with the Scottish Episcopalian Church than with the CofE as such.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
All we have are interpretations that have become traditions.
A believer's baptism only tradition is an interpretation that has become a tradition.
A credobaptism and paedobaptism position is an interpretation that has become a tradition.
In fact, almost everything we do in churches of whatever stripe are interpretations that have become traditions.
I'm finding it hard to think of anything that doesn't fall into that category.
As soon as we even start to read our Bibles were are engaging in interpretation.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is difficult to say this, and perhaps difficult to read it. However, here goes.
The fact that I say 'I have a call' does not on its own trump anything at all, and shouldn't. It is not dependent entirely on my interior illumination. We are none of us entitled to say 'I have a call; because I recognise it, so must you'. There would be a profound and disturbing lack of humility about that approach.
That's why dioceses have standing committees, discernment processes, etc. Anybody can jump up and claim to be called to something; someone else has to evaluate whether that call exists, what it is for, and whether the person called is actually suitable. I don't know of any church that doesn't have something like this.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The usual term is "done decently and in good order." Of course, the church sometimes gets it wrong; but IMHO individuals acting on their own usually get it wronger.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So you admit that the church had this practice from very early in its history
Its antiquity is irrelevant
quote:
(and, by the way, priesthood is discussed quite extensively in Hebrews, with Christ as the model)
Hebrews discusses the unique priesthood of Christ, who fulfilled and fulfils the inadequate priesthood practised in the OT.
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
Nowhere does it refer to priesthood as an office or caste restricted to a selective elite of believers, or suggest that they or anyone else have or has a special authority to "lead" Holy Communion.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The antiquity is irrelevant only if you want it to be irrelevant, Kaplan.
Just as its relevance also depends on our accepting it as such. No-one here is saying that the Early Church looked like High Mass at the Brompton Oratory but it wouldn't have looked like your average Brethren assembly either.
Also, last time I looked even the more sacerdotal traditions do have some kind of concept of the priesthood of all believers - it's simply that it is expressed differently.
I was happy to be asked to 'preside' at times at communcommunion when I was a Baptist or when I was a house-group leader in a restorationist set-up.
It doesn't bother me in the least if I don't get called upon to do likewise in a more sacramental setting. Why should it? It's not all about me and what I want to do.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
Where?
quote:
antiquity is irrelevant
Only if you think apostolicity is unimportant.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The antiquity is irrelevant only if you want it to be irrelevant, Kaplan.
It is interesting, and can even be suggestive, but becomes irrelevant if it is being used in an attempt to enforce conformity in an authoritarian and exclusive manner.
{QUOTE] it wouldn't have looked like your average Brethren assembly either.[/QUOTE]
Au contraire, I think it quite possibly might have - mutatis mutandis!
quote:
it's simply that it is expressed differently.
Well, that's one way of putting it.
quote:
It doesn't bother me in the least if I don't get called upon to do likewise in a more sacramental setting.
Umm.... the point of my comments is not a burning resentment that when I attend an Anglican Communion service (which my love of Cranmerian liturgy inclines me to do at every opportunity) they don't invite me up the front to take over the service....
A "lay" Anglican once shared with me the horror and trepidation with which he administered the Communion in a small country church when the occasional and itinerant minister didn't show up.
I sympathised with his very real distress while simultaneously appreciating its ludicrousness.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[qb] [QUOTE]The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
Where?
Here?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The priesthood of all believers does not preclude the existence of a visible priesthood, any more than it did when Israel was a kingdom of priests as per Exodus 19:6 and had a visible, Levitical priesthood within it. Christian priests, however, are of the order of Melchizedek, not of Aaron.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[qb] [QUOTE]The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
Where?
Here?
I knew that is what someone would quote but it doesn't say that all Christians are priests.
[ 30. June 2015, 11:51: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So non-conformist 'Free Churches' don't enforce conformity in an authoritarian and exclusive manner?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Try being a tad non-conformist in a strict Brethren assembly or a strict Baptist church and see how far it'll get you ... the right-hand of fellowship would quickly turn into the right boot of fellowship and you'd be toe-capped out of the door ...
I don't have any beef with the Brethren - although I know you think I have - but I'm pretty sure that early Christian meetings wouldn't have looked an awful like what goes on in most Brethren assemblies Sunday by Sunday.
Even if they did - so what?
I hasten to add that I don't think they'd have looked like a Cranmerian Anglican service or an Orthodox Liturgy either - although from my visit to a synagogue I was struck by how similar it felt in tone and indeed, some detail, with Orthodox services I've attended.
Of course, worship in the 1st century was undoubtedly plainer and less elaborate than it was to become in subsequent centuries but that doesn't mean it looked anything like a contemporary Brethren meeting.
As for lay-Anglicans acting with terror and trepidation in presiding - presumably in an unauthorised way? - at communion ... well, I can understand your reaction to that and why you think it's daft. It's all down to context, of course.
From what I can gather the Greek Orthodox - and you don't get much more 'high church' than that - have got around this issue by having lay people who are licensed to administer communion elements which have previously been consecrated sacerdotally ... if my understanding is correct.
So, in rural areas they'll have designated people who are allowed to lead prayers and administer communion in the absence of the parish priest - and without upsetting the whole shebang and their highly sacerdotal and sacramental approach to these things.
Whether we have a 'high', 'low' or middling view of these things it strikes me as not being beyond the wit of man to come up with some kind of solution to the issue of clergy being spread too thinly to administer regular communion ...
I'm sure it could be done in settings that take a more sacerdotal/sacramental approach than the Brethren do - without compromising the sense of anything 'special' happening.
Generally speaking, I'd suggest that the Brethren have a far more 'developed' approach to the breaking of bread / Lord's Supper than most evangelicals or Free Church people do.
Obviously not in a 'Catholic' sense but a very developed sense of its importance and centrality nonetheless.
With many evangelicals - and even evangelical Anglicans - the eucharistic aspect seems like a bolt-on afterthought.
As far as the 'priesthood of all believers' goes, whatever Ad Orientem might say, I've certainly known Orthodox priests say that they believe in that - but with some caveats as to what we actually mean by it ...
Simply because there's a guy (or gal) up the front - perhaps in funny clothes - performing rituals and saying particular words in no way obviates the fact that the rest of the congregation aren't also a 'royal priesthood'.
We are all a kingdom of priests ... I've heard RCs, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox say as much. It isn't just Protestants who've noticed those particular verses.
That doesn't side-step issues of clericalism nor does it mean that a kind of 'Father knows best' attitude doesn't prevail in some of these settings.
I know you are not motivated by chalice-envy, by wanting to be the dude who is doing the stuff, as it were ... and we could argue the toss as to whether sacramental and more sacerdotal systems are somehow in and of themselves reprehensible.
I'm not sure they are necessarily - any more than a more congregational approach is necessarily conducive to greater levels and depths of spirituality or lower levels of authoritarianism.
You can find authoritarian structures everywhere - right across the board.
I would say that it is axiomatic that more clerically-focused or sacramentally focused outfits are going to generate higher levels of nominalism - over time.
However, it can also be true that apparently looser, congregational structures can descend into authoritarianism of a different kind ...
There's a balance somewhere.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
You misunderstand me. It's not that I don't think all Christians in some sense share in both Christ's priesthood and kingship, as indeed the said passage suggests, I just wouldn't equate that with all Christians having the right to administer the sacraments, or to teach etc. That right is reserved primarily with the bishop, who is the priest.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think there is a difference between the Orthodox and the Latin West on the way priesthood is understood - and that the way it's been understood and practiced among the RCs has, to all intents and purposes, influenced the way most Protestant think about the issue.
As I understand it, the Orthodox don't go in for 'private masses' in the way the Latin West did - and if an Orthodox priest turned up for the Liturgy and there was nobody else there then - no Liturgy.
Whereas an RC priest or an Anglo-Catholic one would celebrate the eucharist irrespective of whether there was no-one else present apart from themselves.
Theory is often different to practice, but from what I can gather - and from my experience of the Orthodox on-the-ground as it were - the priest is very much seen as part of the congregation and simply fulfilling a different role - for all the beards and funny hats and so on.
I've certainly seen 'elders' and others act in far more ostensibly authoritarian ways in certain Protestant settings.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Only if you think apostolicity is unimportant.
My point, which I would have thought was obvious, is that the apostolic takes precedence over the merely patristic.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Only if you think apostolicity is unimportant.
My point, which I would have thought was obvious, is that the apostolic takes precedence over the merely patristic.
But the Fathers provide a link to the Apostles. Without them you have unbridgeable gap.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You misunderstand me. It's not that I don't think all Christians in some sense share in both Christ's priesthood and kingship, as indeed the said passage suggests, I just wouldn't equate that with all Christians having the right to administer the sacraments, or to teach etc. That right is reserved primarily with the bishop, who is the priest.
You misunderstand the pericope.
Believers don't "share in" Christ's priesthood, which is unique, but they are ALL priests nonetheless in a different sense which the passage makes obvious.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Then you'll have to explain that because that's not in the text, as far as I can see.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, Christ's priesthood is unique. I don't see how that means we don't share in it in some way. In the same way that his life was/is unique - but surely the whole point of Christianity is that we get to share in that ...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So non-conformist 'Free Churches' don't enforce conformity in an authoritarian and exclusive manner?
Obviously, but the point I was making was quite specific to the topic, ie that invocation of the antiquity of the practice of having a presiding "priest" for the Eucharist becomes authoritarian when it tries to deny the validity of any other way of celebrating the Lord's Supper.
I feel very sorry for Christians who have never known the experience of simply breaking bread together to remember the Lord without any "clergy" or "consecrated elements" present.
My father-in-law used to recall holding Communion with a little group of other Christian "lay" soldiers in the New Guinea jungle during WWII, using biscuits and orange juice.
Incidentally, we are no longer Brethren, having just moved to another part of the vast Melbourne connurbation with no assembly practicably close.
The churches vying to seduce us with their competing coffees include the Baptist and Anglican brands.
We have already eliminated one, which provided packaged longlife milk instead of fresh.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The issue, of course, is whether the 'apostolic' takes precedence over the 'merely patristic' or whether it's a case of, 'My interpretation of what is apostolic trumps the merely patristic ...'
First, we have to define and agree on what's 'apostolic'.
If we say 'scripture' then that's a very good start of course, but then we have to define what we mean by that, what books we accept as canonical and why - and also to deal with the issue of interpretation.
Why should we trust Gamaliel's interpretation, say, over Kaplan Corday's - or vice-versa?
Who makes Gamaliel or Kaplan or anyone else judge and jury over what the 'correct' interpretation is?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, Christ's priesthood is unique. I don't see how that means we don't share in it in some way. In the same way that his life was/is unique - but surely the whole point of Christianity is that we get to share in that ...
Sharing in the benefits of Christ's priestly work, or sharing those benefits with others, is quite distinct from presumptuously and blasphemously claimng to share in the accomplishment of it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[/qb]
I feel very sorry for Christians who have never known the experience of simply breaking bread together to remember the Lord without any "clergy" or "consecrated elements" present.
[/QUOTE]
Well, someone from one of those churches who is clearly suffering so much in your view could turn around and say that they feel sorry for Christians who are 'mere memorialists' in their eucharistic theology and who aren't necessarily partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ when they celebrate the Lord's Supper ...
If someone were to claim that you'd dismiss their assertion out of hand and repudiate their feeling sorry for you - yet it doesn't stop you getting on your own high horse and looking down your nose patronisingly on them.
Can you not see the contradiction?
I've 'broken bread' in very informal settings and I'm glad I have done. That doesn't mean I feel that others are losing out because they do so in a more formal way with consecrated elements and a degree of ceremonial.
Why should I?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The issue, of course, is whether the 'apostolic' takes precedence over the 'merely patristic' or whether it's a case of, 'My interpretation of what is apostolic trumps the merely patristic ...'
First, we have to define and agree on what's 'apostolic'.
If we say 'scripture' then that's a very good start of course, but then we have to define what we mean by that, what books we accept as canonical and why - and also to deal with the issue of interpretation.
Why should we trust Gamaliel's interpretation, say, over Kaplan Corday's - or vice-versa?
Who makes Gamaliel or Kaplan or anyone else judge and jury over what the 'correct' interpretation is?
Your argument would be more appropriately directed at the dogmatic sacramentalists and clericals.
I am not denying the validity of their Communion, and sometimes share in it, but they are denying the validity of Communion celebrated outside their ecclesiastical strictures and structures.
They are the ones with the rigid interpretation issues.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am not denying the validity of their Communion, and sometimes share in it, but they are denying the validity of Communion celebrated outside their ecclesiastical strictures and structures.
That's not our problem.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In which case, the reverse is also true, Ad Orientem and the more 'rigid' or 'realised' (depending on how you look at it) strictures of Churches like yours aren't the 'problem' of those who belong to other Christian churches ...
So these things seem to cancel one another out in some way ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
As ever, I find myself in something of a cleft-stick with this one -- but that's the way of it.
I still think, though, that Kaplan shouldn't complain about the stricter 'strictures' as it were in some of the more sacramental/sacerdotal settings whilst at the same time 'feeling sorry' for Christians who might actually prefer to do things a different way to the way he does - and who might actually feel sorry for him in a reverse kind of way ...
I can see what Kaplan's getting at, of course, and I certainly wouldn't 'dismiss' or denigrate any experience or what-have-you I've had of breaking bread in more informal ways in Brethren, 'house-church' and Baptist settings ...
If I ever crossed the Tiber or the Bosphorus I'm not sure what view I'd have of those occasions - I'd probably regard them as precursors for the 'real thing' or else some kind of anticipation or partial fulfilment that had now finally been realised now I was in the 'right' ecclesial setting ...
I don't know.
For all I know I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in any 'objective' sense - because ultimately all these things are faith issues and we walk by faith not by sight ... I don't expect a great big sign to appear in the air above anyone's communion celebration saying, 'This is valid ...' or 'Watch this one, it's invalid ...'
As far as I understand it, whereas many RCs and Orthodox are prone to declare what's valid or not in eucharistic terms, the official line is more ambiguous than that - rather in a kind of 'we can say what is a valid eucharistic, we can't say what isn't ... or, if we do so we can't then determine that because it isn't valid it is therefore void of any benefit ...'
I might be wrong on that one, though.
On the guys in the jungle sharing communion with whatever came to hand - well, that's not restricted to any one tradition - I've heard of RCs and Orthodox in extremis - Gulags, prison-camps etc - improvising with whatever they had available.
We've all of us got to be careful, though, of being Pharisaical - and there can be a kind of reverse, inverted snobbery form of Pharisaisism among non-conformist and Free Church groups that is equal and opposite to any kind of ecclesial snobbery one might encounter in the more sacramental settings.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Well, I don't go in for all that scholastic nonsense about validity. What makes a sacrament is the Holy Spirit, it's just that I would argue that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Neither is that to say that the Holy Spirit doesn't act outside the Church, it's just that whatever it is they do, a sacrament it ain't.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, I don't go in for all that scholastic nonsense about validity. What makes a sacrament is the Holy Spirit, it's just that I would argue that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Neither is that to say that the Holy Spirit doesn't act outside the Church, it's just that whatever it is they do, a sacrament it ain't.
I would agree, but I would say that the church can often extend further than we see, and it's not for us to say where the church isn't. If we suspect that it is not present somewhere, then we can only invite people to come to it, to "taste and see that the Lord is good". If they don't notice a difference, perhaps the church was already where they were.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I get that, Ad Orientem ... but it takes a lot of adjustment from a Proddy position which sees the Church as being present where 'two or three are gathered' ...
There's the Calvin thing of course, where the word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered ...
Which then begs the question as to how we know that the word of God is being preached adequately and responsibly and that the sacraments are being duly administered properly ...
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I understand it, the Orthodox don't go in for 'private masses' in the way the Latin West did - and if an Orthodox priest turned up for the Liturgy and there was nobody else there then - no Liturgy.
Whereas an RC priest or an Anglo-Catholic one would celebrate the eucharist irrespective of whether there was no-one else present apart from themselves.
I was taught that in the TEC, a priest may not celebrate the Eucharist unless there is at least one other worshipper present.
Moo
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I ever crossed the Bosphorus
You're thinking of converting to Islam?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
there are no sacraments outside the Church.
There are no sacraments inside the church either, but the NT contains two ordinances.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why should we trust Gamaliel's interpretation, say, over Kaplan Corday's - or vice-versa?
We’ve been over all this before.
I am aware that radical epistemological pessimism and perpetual indecision is your schtick, but while it is fun to use as a debating trick, it is ultimately untenable.
In theory all Christian beliefs can be dismissed as provisional and relative on hermeneutical grounds, but in practice you, and I, and everyone roughly within the orthodox tradition, is forced to commit to a number of core doctrines, or else identify as some sort of agnostic.
You and AO and myself would all subscribe to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (AO might except the double procession), but also have our own convictions in other areas (along with convictions as to whether they are or are not adiaphorous) which we are free to argue or assert.
It really doesn’t add to the discussion to constantly harp on, “But that’s only your interpretation”.
On the specific issue, I have my convictions about the Lord’s Supper; I understand but disagree with other views and regard them as wrong, but don’t trivialize them with a “But that’s just what you think”; and I regard it as an adiaphoron, which is why I am happy to participate in Anglican Eucharists.
I don’t feel patronised by those who feel sorry for me over my “mere memeorialism”, and I hope that no-one is precious enough to feel offended at my feeling sorry for them over what I regard as their lack of freedom in worship.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
There is freedom in every church, it's just that in some there is also obedience. An excellent model for Christian life in general, I would say.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
P.S. You also need to have a large, wooden, carved and extremely uncomfortable chair for the Presiding Minister. Ideally bits of the carving will stick into inconvenient parts of their anatomy. Without this, the Eucharist simply won't "work".
This example may fail the test by being marginally too comfy.
That chair is what we call 'lookshuree'. The one I most often sit on has no carved bits, but has a steeply sloping, shiny cushion. The effort of sitting calmly at the table makes your thighs burn. So I stand. [/QB]
That chair looks as if it came from the
Room of Requirement
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Kaplan,
You mean I might not accept the double procession, and indeed I don't. Love to discuss that one day.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Kaplan Corday. Close. But no cigar. I don't feel that we should feel sorry for the more 'realised' traditions (nice term Gamaliel), including those that exclude us. We should bless them unconditionally. The more I experience the primitive fundamentalism and groundless superstition of my congregation (and myself: you should have heard my prayers on Monday night as I was literally paralysed in agony with incipient double incontinence from lumbago), the MORE I want the mystery of the Eucharist. The more deconstructed I get about Christ, the more I need his body and blood. It's very, VERY personal and I have NO right whatsoever for anyone, any fellowship, to accommodate me in any way.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Kaplan - I think you'll find broad agreement from me - up to a point ...
That doesn't mean that I'm committed to radical pessimism and indecision - although I am very conscious that this is how I come across aboard Ship at times -- and indeed, in 'real life' too - I don't wear a 'mask' or persona here but I do tend to post according to 'type' ...
As you are aware, I do have convictions and yes, I'd nail my colours to the mast on the Nicene-Chalcedonian formularies - and I'd be prepared to come down on the Orthodox side with the filioque / double-procession thing ...
Wiser minds than mine have wrestled with that one over the years.
So, no, I am not dismissing any Christian belief as relative and provisional. Far from it. But neither am I arguing for the kind of sola scriptura position that you espouse.
Why not?
Because I think it's untenable.
For one thing, it separates the scriptures from the Church (however defined) and takes the NT as overly prescriptive.
You'll know all the arguments about that, of course.
So, no, I'm not some sort of agnostic. There are certain fuzzy issues I remain agnostic about but I am far from agnostic on the dogmatic core of the apostolic and patristic faith. I s'pose I'm paleo-orthodox in a Rowan Williams kind of way.
I do think it's pertinent to the discussion, though, to challenge you - and myself and everyone else - on the grounds that we have for the particular interpretations and standpoints we adopt.
Forgive me, but just as some of our more clerical/sacerdotal friends can come across as rather dismissive of anything that falls outside that ambit, you can sometimes sound rather haughty and dismissive in the opposite direction.
'There are no sacraments in the church because I say so,' sort of thing.
Or, more charitably, 'There are no sacraments in the church because they aren't in the NT according to my interpretation of it ...'
Challenging you - or anyone else - on statements like that isn't to trivialise the debate - it's to raise important issues. Sacraments have been important to many, many Christians for hundreds of years - well over a millenium -- and depending on our reading of the sub-apostolic Fathers, well, well before that too.
These things weren't invented in the 4th century.
My point about your feeling sorry for people who take a different perspective on these things wasn't so much about concern for their precious feelings - as a concern that you, or I or any of us can become Pharisaical about our own standpoints.
'I thank God I am not like that Roman Catholic or Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic Christian over there with his/her rigid and strait-jacketed approach to worship ...'
Like you, I've fellowshipped widely and have seen all sides -- I've worshipped in highly informal and often happy-clappy settings - and I've worshipped in highly ritualised settings --
My view these days is that the one side is nowhere near as free and uninhibited or informal as it likes to think it is - nor is the other as rigidly constrained as may appear from the outside.
I'm not taking sides as to which is 'better' or 'more valid' than the other -- that's not how I think about these things - although, like everyone else, I do have my own preferences and inclinations and these have changed over the years.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Kaplan,
You mean I might not accept the double procession, and indeed I don't. Love to discuss that one day.
I mean exactly what I wrote, ie that as Orthodox you would be likely to EXCEPT (synonymous with exclude) the filioque clause.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Kaplan,
You mean I might not accept the double procession, and indeed I don't. Love to discuss that one day.
I mean exactly what I wrote, ie that as Orthodox you would be likely to EXCEPT (synonymous with exclude) the filioque clause.
Ah, yes!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Except in acceptable circumstances ...
Or when an excerpt of it was accessible ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
there are no sacraments outside the Church.
There are no sacraments inside the church either, but the NT contains two ordinances.
I assume you mean Baptism and Holy Communion.
But confession and anointing are also in the NT - James.
Plus the laying on of hands for ordination (Acts)
[ 01. July 2015, 14:56: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[qb] [QUOTE]The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
Where?
Here?
I knew that is what someone would quote but it doesn't say that all Christians are priests.
Where? Still no answer from KC. Because it is nowhere. The term 'prieshthood of al believers' in an unscriptural term.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
It's a bit weird then, leo, that Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox all seem to agree that there is a priesthood of all believers in some sense. The only difference of opinion concerns whether there's a further order of priests as well
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Incidentally, we are no longer Brethren, having just moved to another part of the vast Melbourne connurbation with no assembly practicably close. ...
Leo I think that indicates KC might be asleep!
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Incidentally, we are no longer Brethren, having just moved to another part of the vast Melbourne connurbation with no assembly practicably close. ...
Leo I think that indicates KC might be asleep!
I think Leo was asleep, or at least comatose, when he read the pericope from I Peter.
The NT might not use the term "priesthood of all believers" (it doesn't use the term "Trinity" either) but that passage could scarcely be clearer in teaching it.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
there are no sacraments outside the Church.
There are no sacraments inside the church either, but the NT contains two ordinances.
I assume you mean Baptism and Holy Communion.
But confession and anointing are also in the NT - James.
Plus the laying on of hands for ordination (Acts)
It would take some exegetical and theological gymnastics to transform these church practices into ordinances, let alone sacraments.
You might as well say that greeting each other with a holy kiss is an ordinance/sacrament; after all, it's also mentioned in the NT.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
PS After all, kissing has been both the symbol and vehicle of inestimable grace!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ha ha --
The point is, though, surely, that the sacraments developed FROM these things -- whether we accept or agree with their validity or not, they are based, to some extent, on NT principles and practices - which have then been sanctified and habituated as it were, over time ...
I really can't see what's wrong with that.
The alternative is to fondly imagine that we can have everything as it apparently was in the 1st century - and to imagine that our particular forms or tastes in worship style and liturgy somehow conform with that.
The point is, we none of us live in the 1st century. It was often said of the kind of 'restorationist' vision of the UK 'new churches' that they imagined the NT churches to be something like their own churches - only in togas.
I had a lot of time for Arthur Wallis, for instance, but even back in the day I felt uncomfortable with his imaginary 'recreation' of a visit to 1st century Corinth and his attendance at a church meeting there -- even to many of us involved with the restorationist ambit at the time it read very much like the practices of our own fellowships read back into the pages of the NT ...
Of course,, Christian worship became more 'stylised' and ritualised over time -- from what I can gather there was no particular 'style' of clerical dress until the 4th century and it's pretty clear that the eucharistic services and so on became more elaborate as money and influence began to enter the Churches.
Heck, I've even heard Orthodox priests say that elements of their Liturgy as they have it now are rather too 'florid' and could do with a less twiddly approach at times ...
But it's pretty clear from the Didache and some of the earliest sub-apostolic and Patristic accounts that the essential format was there from an early stage.
That said, there are things in the Didache that I've not seen or heard anyone do -- in whatever church setting ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The thing is, it seems to me, there's an equal and opposite overly simplistic tendency going on here ...
Leo will say, 'Look at the Epistle of James, you can see confession and holy unction - the anointing with oil - going on there - both of them sacraments ...'
Kaplan will say, 'Piffle, they aren't sacraments or even ordinances, you have to jump through hermeneutical hoops to make them so ...'
The common denominator in each case is neither exegesis nor eisegesis - but arguing from a position formed by they own tradition.
It suits Kaplan not to accept these things as sacraments -- just as it suits Leo to consider them as such.
That's the point I'm trying to make - both are arguing from the standpoint of tradition (or Tradition) and both are drawing on the same NT texts to confirm or deny that tradition/Tradition.
I'm not arguing for a position of extreme subjectivity here - simply pointing out what I believe to be going on.
Ultimately, we adopt a faith position in any of these things. Which is why - as well as tilting at both Leo and Kaplan - I find myself tilting at IngoB -- because there is no objectively 'proveable' standard by which he judges Anglican (or any other non-RC) clergy as 'incapable' of transforming the consecraged elements into the 'Body and Blood of Christ.'
I thought it was God the Holy Spirit who was supposed to do that ...
Ok, he uses vessels - but you take my point ...
Besides, a lot of Anglican clergy wouldn't consider themselves to be doing any such thing any way -- they take a more 'memorialist' or less 'realised' stance ...
But how can it possibly be demonstrated that an Anglo-Catholic priest, say, who believes that through the act of consecration / the epiclesis and what have you - that the elements are changed?
How can we be so sure that he is mistaken in this belief - simply because he is not in communion with the See of Peter?
Anymore than we can be 100% certain that RC priests have this apparent 'ability' -- as has been said before, over and over, it's not as if we can scientifically discern any change in the elements under a microscope in a laboratory.
This isn't to argue for a position of hazy uncertainty - but it is to acknowledge that 'we see in a glass darkly.'
I admire both the principled certainties of Kaplan's position - and that of ExclamationMark - and even the more icily Scholastic certainties of IngoB ... but I find it hard to follow them into those clean-cut and cut-and-dried positions when real-life seems a lot less certain than that ...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Incidentally, we are no longer Brethren, having just moved to another part of the vast Melbourne connurbation with no assembly practicably close. ...
Leo I think that indicates KC might be asleep!
I think Leo was asleep, or at least comatose, when he read the pericope from I Peter.
The NT might not use the term "priesthood of all believers" (it doesn't use the term "Trinity" either) but that passage could scarcely be clearer in teaching it.
No - the term is 'royal priesthood' and that is different because we share in one priesthood but we have different functions - as Paul's 'body' metaphor makes plain in many of his letters wehen he asks 'Are all apostles/ all...?'
So share, communally, in Christ's priesthood but we are not all presbyters.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
there are no sacraments outside the Church.
There are no sacraments inside the church either, but the NT contains two ordinances.
I assume you mean Baptism and Holy Communion.
But confession and anointing are also in the NT - James.
Plus the laying on of hands for ordination (Acts)
It would take some exegetical and theological gymnastics to transform these church practices into ordinances, let alone sacraments.
You might as well say that greeting each other with a holy kiss is an ordinance/sacrament; after all, it's also mentioned in the NT.
What is the difference between an 'ordinance' and a 'church practice?'
And why should some scriptural injunctions, like baptism, different from others, like confession?
Are you being selective in your use of scripture?
[ 02. July 2015, 09:12: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So share, communally, in Christ's priesthood
No we don't.
Christ's priesthood is quite different from that of the priesthood of each Christian.
The connection is that Christ's unique priestly work makes possible the priestly status and function of every believer.
quote:
but we are not all presbyters.
True, but the term presbyter does not mean priest.
It is used interchangeably in the NT with the term episcopos, and each means elder or overseer.
There is a separate term for priest, hiereus.
Christians are not all elders/overseers, but they are all priests.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It depends how Anabaptist you are, 'New presbyter is old priest writ large ...'
As I understand it from current Jewish practice, the rabbi's role is more like that of a 'presbyter' in the Protestant elder/overseer sense - which makes sense of course ...
My understanding of the Orthodox view of clerical orders is that the priest is closer to that understanding than to the more 'realised' RC one - however, with a significantly different aspect insofar as they do see there being a 'priestly' ministry that fulfils the OT ... and which in no way detracts from the unique priestly ministry of Christ.
More of a both/and rather than either/or thing ...
But I'm only going on impressions here.
Ad Orientem can probably comment on the heirus/presbyter connection and the way these things are understood within Orthodoxy.
My impression is that the Orthodox view 'looks' a lot like the RC one but differs from it in many significant aspects - and not simply the issue of clerical marriage.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends how Anabaptist you are, 'New presbyter is old priest writ large ...'
John Milton was an Anabaptist?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
As I understand it, the bishop is the priest, hence when you see the old list of orders it ends with priest (doorkeeper, reader, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, priest). Presbyter, which today we call priest, are men the bishop ordains to celebrate the sacraments in his stead (for the bishop cannot be everywhere). Without the bishop there are not priests (presbyters). Indeed, a priest dismissed by his bishop simply ceases to be a priest (none of that valid by illicit nonsense).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, Milton wasn't an Anabaptist, of course ... but as I understand it, this particular Miltonic quote was a favourite among English Anabaptists and radicals.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
True, but the term presbyter does not mean priest.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Ad Orientem, there's a juicy quote somewhere about the 1st century church entering a tunnel around the end of the century with elders/presbyters and emerging, like a train, somewhere towards the end of the 2nd century with metropolitan bishops ...
Of course, depending on how we read the sub-Apostolic Fathers, the 'episcopal' and even the more sacramental and sacerdotal elements seem quite developed early on - certainly in St Ignatius of Antioch's writings and in St Clement of Rome.
But I've come across Baptists and others who've read those passages and not come to those conclusions.
I can only say that in my 'restorationist' days and looking for early evidence for the continuation of 'apostles and prophets' as we understood them in that context, I was unpleasantly surprised by how 'Catholic' the early Church sounded when I started reading the sub-Apostolic and Patristic material ...
'Heck,' I thought, 'That's not supposed to happen ...'
So, yes, it's not entirely clear how and when these things developed as they later came to be - but it's pretty clear that there were early developments that led to the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest/presbyter and deacon as understood in the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches ... and indeed across the RCs and Anglicans.
Kaplan, of course, would say that because 'door keepers', 'acolytes', 'exorcists' and others aren't specifically mentioned in the NT then they aren't necessarily valid 'orders' or functions for us today.
Indeed, I'm not sure what a 'door-keepers's' role would be today now that we don't have to close the doors and exclude catechumens ...
I once attended an Orthodox deanery conference and was surprised to hear the 'laying on of hands' described in Acts 8 with the Samaritans and Anania's laying hands on Saul/Paul in Acts 9 discussed in sacerdotal/Orthodox ministry terms.
I argued that Ananias of Damascus was simply an 'ordinary' disciple - not one of the 12 or one of the other apostles - and that the story was included in Acts to show that divine unction could be conveyed through 'lay people' as it were and not only especially ordained ministers ...
The Orthodox answer to that, of course, was that Ananias was one of the 70 - according to Hippolytus and according to Tradition -- so my objection didn't stand ...
Although some privately said to me afterwards that the speaker had over-egged the pudding to a certain extent ... he was taking it to state that the Holy Spirit would only 'move' or act as it were through the ministrations of official Orthodox orders. Some publicly disagreed with this too and said that it wasn't the business of the Orthodox Church to confine or restrict where the wind would blow as it listeth ... as it were.
So I s'pose that leaves me in a both/and rather than either/or position ...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
True, but the term presbyter does not mean priest.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means.
Not in Greek. In Greek, it means "elder." It is, of course, the source of the English work "priest," and it is used by some churches as a synonym for "priest." But Kaplan is right—the Greek word for "priest" in the sacrificial or mediative sense is iereus, from which we get the word "hierarchy." The Latin is sacerdos. As best I can remember, the NT does not use iereus (or sacerdos) to describe any leaders in the Christian community.
[ 02. July 2015, 11:31: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
True, but the term presbyter does not mean priest.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means.
On what grounds arethosemyfeet?
Kaplan can explain better than I can how the Greek 'heirus' differs from 'presbyter' ...
I've heard arguments that they are different and other arguments that suggest that they are synonymous or at least close ...
How can we tell that they are same or indeed whether they are different?
What's the criteria for coming down on one side or the other on this issue?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I was merely talking about the word itself, I'm not wading into whether the two Greek words should both be rendered as priest. You may well not agree with the connotations of Presbyter meaning Priest, and it may be that those connotations are not, in fact, Biblically supported, but that is what the word means.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I was merely talking about the word itself, I'm not wading into whether the two Greek words should both be rendered as priest. You may well not agree with the connotations of Presbyter meaning Priest, and it may be that those connotations are not, in fact, Biblically supported, but that is what the word means.
In English and some other languages now, yes, but not in the Greek of the NT, which is what Kaplan was clearly talking about.
[ 02. July 2015, 12:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, but that still leaves us with resolving what it meant to the writers of the NT and what their readers would have understood it to mean.
I've seen arguments that contest that it would have been understood in sacerdotal - or proto-sacerdotal terms by those who, surprise, surprise, advocated a sacerdotal understanding of Christian ministry.
I've seen the opposite argued by those who, surprise, surprise, don't hold with any form of sacerdotal understanding of Christian ministry - beyond all believers being a 'priesthood' in some sense.
The point I'm making is that whatever perspective we adopt on this one it's going to be a 'value-laden' one - how can it be otherwise?
The Reformers reacted against a perceived overly-clerical approach within Western medieval Catholicism - with its private Masses and Masses for the dead and so on ...
Hence their emphasis on the 'priesthood of all believers' and the way that there are gradations of understanding within those churches which came out of the Reformation as to what a 'priesthood' actually means.
However we tackle and interpret these things we're going to be influenced by the respective traditions we represent -- we can't simply point at a few verses and say, 'There, I told you so ...'
All interpretation is value-laden to a greater or lesser extent. Pointing at the references to presbyters in the NT and saying, "Ah, but it doesn't say 'ieurus' which would the usual Greek term for priest,' is a strong argument, certainly, but it's no less value-laden than one which sees the elders the Apostle Paul set in place at Ephesus, for instance, as somehow having a sacerdotal ministry in the same way, say, as a father-confessor in medieval France.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've seen it argued, of course, that Acts and the NT epistles represent a time before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 - so the OT priesthood was still effectively in place.
Which is the dreaded 'argument from silence' position ...
The same could be said, to an extent, for the absence of the term 'ieurus' in relation to Christian ministry in the NT.
I think I'm right in thinking that the Orthodox and the RCs, in different ways, see the Church taking on the priestly/sacerdotal ministry and themes of the OT only with Christ as the great High Priest.
I've not explored differences in RC and Orthodox understandings of the book of Hebrews in relation to Protestant understandings to anything but hazy on that though ...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Christ is a priest in the order of Melchisedech. The Levitical priesthood, as far as Christianity is concerned, is redundant. The bishop essentially acts as Christ, so that when he baptises etc. it is actually Christ who baptises.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - I'd sort of gathered the idea of the Melchizedek priesthood thing - and Protestants believe Christ's priesthood to be in that order - ie. different to the Levitical priesthood.
I think we'd 'get' the idea that Christ is the one who does the baptising too ... although most Protestants wouldn't express it that way - but there'd be a range of views on that - some connected with pneumatology, others less so.
What I think most Protestants would struggle with, though, would be the way that elements of Orthodox and RC worship appear to be quite 'Old Testament' in feel ...
That's where the issues might lie - as well as a certain squeamishness about sacerdotalism and the idea of the eucharist as a 'sacrifice' and so on ... although I understand that the Orthodox see this as an 'unbloody' oblation as it were and not some kind of repetition of Christ's once and for all sacrifice at Calvary -- but I'm struggling with the terminology as you can probably tell.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
On this priest, presbyteros, hiereus, sacerdos issue:-
First of all, the English word 'priest' derives from presbyteros.
Second, presbyteros in the New Testament means something like 'elder' or 'minister'. Whatever understandings may have developed later, and it seems to have developed them fairly early on, it is not possible to argue that as used there, it includes any sense of cohen, the person who carried out the Temple sacrifices in the Old Testament.
It is the latter word which the LXX translates hiereus and Latin sacerdos. Sacerdos was also used in Latin as the word for those who carried out pagan sacrifices.
Third, though, English now has no word other than 'priest' that means a person who performs sacrifices, whether Christian, Jewish or pagan. Whether Anglo-Saxon had one I don't know. If it did, it has not come through into modern English. Because of the medieval church's understanding of the nature of the Mass, the English word 'priest' long ago absorbed both meanings. It now covers the areas of meaning covered by both presbyteros and hiereus/cohen/sacerdos.
Until 1529, that probably did not matter very much.
Fourth, in other religions and in Temple Judaism, there was no automatic connection between these two roles. A cohen descended from Aaron performed the cultic acts. A rabbi carried out the teaching and pastoral functions. Not only were they not the same. I think it was even forbidden for a cohen to become a rabbi.
Many churches on the Reformation side of the Reformation divide have been to different degrees uncomfortable with any sacrificial, sacerdotal aspect to a priest's role. However, and this is significant, as far as I know, no Christian ecclesial community has ever really separated the roles. All, with remarkable unanimity, have assumed, without thinking about it, that however they understand ministry and whatever they believe about the nature of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Mass/Breaking of Bread Service/Holy Liturgy, the same person is responsible for the whole of the presbyteral role, liturgical, pastoral and administrative.
Those who emphasise priesthood in the sacrificial sense, expect their clergy to be pastors of the flock. They condemn them if they are not. Those who, because of its sacrificial inheritance, eschew the word 'priest' still, just the same, expect their ministers to lead congregations, conduct services and preside. Indeed, even ecclesial communities that have no formal ministry at all, still assume the various presbyteral functions will go together and that the ecclesial body will be responsible for ensuring this.
There's even a striking similarity between the sort of person the various sorts of Christian regard as a good priest/minister/vicar/pastor and the sort they regard as a bad, idle, pompous, self-interested, dogmatic or corrupt one.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Interesting thoughts, Enoch.
Do you think the combination of roles is a reflection of the fact that Christ did all of these things in his ministry?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Where do we get the idea from that Christ baptizes anyone? He never did. And that anyone is Him when they baptize?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Presumably it's from the idea that the Church is Christ's body here on earth - it represents him and acts 'as' him as it were.
It's a follow on from the kind of identification and Incarnational emphases that are embedded within sacramental theology. It's there in eucharistic theology of course - the consecrated elements both represent Christ and 'are' Christ. There are NT precedents - 'As he is so are you to be to the world.'
There's a richness in this can sometimes be lacking in the more prosaic of Protestant approaches
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Interesting thoughts, Enoch.
Do you think the combination of roles is a reflection of the fact that Christ did all of these things in his ministry?
I'm not sure, and not convinced. I think it's in some way so self-evident a way of looking at things that it's just happened without anyone ever noticing it or thinking until today that it was a point worth remarking on.
One could add it as a take on ministry if one finds it an inspirational idea. I don't think I'd encourage it, but then I happen not to think the idea that a priest/minister/pastor should see themselves or be seen as an ikon of Christ is either good theology or beneficial to clergy or laity.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
More is less when it's mandatory.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As I understand it, the Orthodox view is that we are all icons of Christ. In some Orthodox services people will 'venerate' one another - if that's the right word - in the same way as they do the icons.
The Church is seen as an icon of Christ.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm caught in the paradox that I need more liturgy, more contemplation, more reverence, more worship of God in Christ and less i.e. zero exclusion, patriarchy, medieval and modern theology in preaching and song.
Ah well.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, and this is significant, as far as I know, no Christian ecclesial community has ever really separated the roles. All, with remarkable unanimity, have assumed, without thinking about it, that however they understand ministry and whatever they believe about the nature of the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Mass/Breaking of Bread Service/Holy Liturgy, the same person is responsible for the whole of the presbyteral role, liturgical, pastoral and administrative.
In the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which observes the Lord's Supper weekly, lay elders normally preside at the table, even though the minister—who will preach after communion—is present.
[ 03. July 2015, 13:54: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm caught in the paradox that I need more liturgy, more contemplation, more reverence, more worship of God in Christ and less i.e. zero exclusion, patriarchy, medieval and modern theology in preaching and song.
Ah well.
Well yes, welcome to the real world, Martin.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I understand it, the Orthodox view is that we are all icons of Christ. In some Orthodox services people will 'venerate' one another - if that's the right word - in the same way as they do the icons.
The Church is seen as an icon of Christ.
The Church, as in the people who are Christians, those who live in Christ, while Christ lives in them?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, that's the gist of it, I think.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As I understand it, the Orthodox view is that we are all icons of Christ. In some Orthodox services people will 'venerate' one another - if that's the right word - in the same way as they do the icons.
The Church is seen as an icon of Christ.
The Church, as in the people who are Christians, those who live in Christ, while Christ lives in them?
I don't think you'll find anyone gainsay that the Church is the people. There seems to be a misconception that by Church we mean the bishops but, of course, the bishops themselves are just a portion of the people which make the Church. The difference between Orthodoxy (also Roman Catholicism) and Protestantism is that we believe that visible unity is an essential part of the Church.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'As many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ ...'
They have a chant that runs like that - with an 'Allelulia' at the end of the line.
It's also in the NT of course.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Where and what is this visible unity which I lack? Which makes me second class or less? Not truly Christian? Where can I see it? What is it that all men know Christians by?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Silly me, it's in that Roman Catholics love Roman Catholics and Orthodox love Orthodox. That really is a sign.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Where and what is this visible unity which I lack? Which makes me second class or less? Not truly Christian? Where can I see it? What is it that all men know Christians by?
Well, Martin, you have to work that out for yourself. But if you are wondering what I mean by visible, I mean unity of faith and sacraments, and the bishop.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Has that got anything to do with kindness?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Has that got anything to do with kindness?
Our Lord, in his discourse with his apostles after the last supper, prayed that they be one. This is a sign of love, that is, true visible unity; not some fuzzy, meaningless invisibleness, for in reality there is no unity at all if it cannot be seen.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
no unity at all if it cannot be seen.
Why?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
no unity at all if it cannot be seen.
Why?
The nature of a body is tangible and its unity is therefore tangible too. If that does not exist then there is no body.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
no unity at all if it cannot be seen.
Why?
The nature of a body is tangible and its unity is therefore tangible too. If that does not exist then there is no body.
Not if the term body is being used metaphorically.
Credally, the church is defined by its unity, sanctity, catholicity and apostolicity; there is no mention of visibility.
There is no way of demonstrating outwardly and tangibly our oneness with a Christian believer in the backblocks of China, for instance, but it is a spiritual reality nonetheless.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Credally, the church is defined by its unity...
Again, that means absolutely nothing unless there is something tangible we can measure it by.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Credally, the church is defined by its unity...
Again, that means absolutely nothing unless there is something tangible we can measure it by.
What is the "something tangible" that you would demand to demonstrate your relationship to the credally and historically orthodox disciple of Christ in China?
Or don't you believe it exists?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Faith, the sacraments (these especially are visible signs), under an orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Faith, the sacraments (these especially are visible signs), under an orthodox bishop around whom the faithful can congregate.
Faith is not "something tangible".
Any sacraments/ordinances (because all Christians have some version of them), or only of a sort of which you approve?
Bishops in the NT sense of episcopoi/presbyteroi are certainly integral to church life, but that is not the same as saying that the church doesn't exist where they are not present.
Would you recognise a little group of orthodox believers without any formal leadership, simply sharing the elements in the Lord's Supper, as your brothers and sisters in Christ, or would they not "really" be part of the church?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Faith is not "something tangible".
Confession of faith is visible.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any sacraments/ordinances (because all Christians have some version of them), or only of a sort of which you approve?
Definitely the latter, for all sorts of reasons. There are no sacraments outside the Church. That's not to say that the Holy Spirit does not act outside the Church, but sacraments they are not.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Bishops in the NT sense of episcopoi/presbyteroi are certainly integral to church life, but that is not the same as saying that the church doesn't exist where they are not present.
Wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church (St. Ignatius). Whilst I would agree that it's not always easy to say where the Church isn't, the only place we know it is for sure is where we can see it. The Church is visible so that we might know where to go in order to be saved.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Would you recognise a little group of orthodox believers without any formal leadership, simply sharing the elements in the Lord's Supper, as your brothers and sisters in Christ, or would they not "really" be part of the church?
See above.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Church is visible so that we might know where to go in order to be saved.
So anyone who has put their faith in Christ in isolation from a tangible church as evidenced by a tangible bishop has not really been saved?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Church is visible so that we might know where to go in order to be saved.
So anyone who has put their faith in Christ in isolation from a tangible church as evidenced by a tangible bishop has not really been saved?
I'd put it thus: whilst the Church is no guarantee of one's salvation it is nevertheless the only place we know for sure where one can be saved.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Odd. If you know for sure that you can be saved in (by, with) the Church, isn't that a guarantee? Isn't that what the 'for sure' means?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Odd. If you know for sure that you can be saved in (by, with) the Church, isn't that a guarantee? Isn't that what the 'for sure' means?
A guarantee that "here one can be saved", certainly. On a personal level, however, belonging to the Church does not automatically mean that one will be saved. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but a necessary one.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
But wouldn't you say that it's possible to be saved outside the Church? In which case what is the difference?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But wouldn't you say that it's possible to be saved outside the Church? In which case what is the difference?
I would say we just don't know. But we do know of one place: the Church.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Outside the Church you might be saved, inside the Church you might be saved. What's the difference?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Walking around on my own, with my eyes closed and no map, I might get to my destination: walking around with a guide, with my eyes open and with a map, I might get to my destination. What's the difference?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Walking around on my own, with my eyes closed and no map, I might get to my destination: walking around with a guide, with my eyes open and with a map, I might get to my destination. What's the difference?
The Holy Spirit guides. The Bible tells of Jesus, the way to salvation. The light of Christ opens our eyes. The people in some churches lead people astray. There is no cut and dried when it comes to God, all permutations are possible, as long as we invite Jesus into our lives in baptism and do our best to follow him. Then we have the hope of salvation, and we are members of the body of Christ, the universal Church.
This does not reduce the importance of the organised churches, of fellowship, of the sacraments, or of the honour of service in ministry whether ordained or not, whether bishops or archbishops or deacons or popes who are given greater responsibility, or not. The Holy Spirit draws us in to organised churches, so that we may co-operate in God's service, not so that God can ignore everyone outside of them and refuse their faith.
I'm convinced that God calls everyone into service who believes in Christ, and that man-made separations of duties are not necessarily in accordance with God's will.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
In terms of 'being sure' there's no difference between walking randomly and using a map, eyes open or shut. You might get there either way. You can be certain in neither case.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My understanding - undoubtedly incomplete - of the Orthodox view of these matters is that:
a) To some extent it very much depends on who you talk to ...
b) Whilst they are prepared to say that congregation X is a proper church - because it is in communion with an Orthodox bishop ... and that congregation Y isn't - because it doesn't have an Orthodox bishop - it doesn't mean that the people there aren't orthodox (with a small o) or aren't believers in Christ.
To a greater or lesser extent, I've come across variations of that view in Protestant circles too - some Reformed people, for instance, have very particular views of what constitutes a church ... and the restorationist 'new church' people certainly did ... in fact, I used to feel very uncomfortable back in those circles when I heard - as I did once or twice - some of the leaders claim that churches that weren't constituted around 'apostles and prophets' as they understood these ministries to be - couldn't really call themselves a church in the full sense ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I used to baulk at that, and so did most of us ... and to be fair, it was very much a minority view held only by a handful of the more hard-line leaders.
Again, it all depends on the ecclesiology. It doesn't make sense within a Protestant frame of reference but it makes sense within a more Catholic one.
As with other aspects - such as understandings of the eucharist - the 'link' if you like between metaphor and reality (for want of a better word) is more closely allied in Catholic thought than it can be in Protestant thinking ...
Hence the greater 'physicality' if you like associated with more Catholic and sacramental forms of worship. All these things tie together ...
But I'm making an obvious point and adding little to the discussion. I'll get me coat ...
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
How does he know he's not being called to have lots of people round for tea?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Hatless's point brings us to the nub of all this, I think ... we are 'walking by faith not by sight.'
Whatever viewpoint we take we are taking a step of faith - we can't 'prove' any of this stuff ...
That doesn't mean there's no evidence ... I'd say there is 'data' and so on ... of course there is.
Ultimately though, we can't stick any of it in a test-tube and prove it. So we have to take a step of faith - 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God' and so on.
In doing so, we can certainly show conviction - faith is intangible but it is also 'the substance' the conviction of things unseen.
But it's also open to the possibility that we are deceiving ourselves and could be completely wrong.
We are all going to die one day and we could wake up dead, as it were. We could die and that would be it - oblivion. We'd be done the wiser.
Ok - that's getting somewhat like Paschal's wager ... but ultimately it all comes down to faith and not to anything we can 'prove' in a Scholastic sense.
Ad Orientem and IngoB believe that their respective Churches are The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They base that on Tradition - St Ignatius of Antioch and so on - where the bishop/overseer is, there is the Church ... and each sees the other as schismatic in some way.
What basis do the rest of us have for either dismissing or accepting their point of view?
It boils down to a step of faith in one or other of a number of alternative directions ... what we believe the NT to teach, what we have concluded for ourselves on the basis of what we see as the evidence ... and so on.
Consequently we're all going to go round in circles and either agree to disagree or else change our opinion in some way.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
But while IngoB thinks that he can be certain that God will turn up, endorse the RC sacraments, save good RCs, however you wish to put it, I think Ad Orientem, despite using the phrase 'be sure' is actually saying there is no guarantee.
My reaction is that if unity is so important, then this acknowledgement that there is no guarantee is very important. There can be no unity without modesty and humility.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Outside the Church you might be saved, inside the Church you might be saved. What's the difference?
That's not what I said at all. What I said is that we know of only one place for sure where a person can be saved, the Church. As for anything else, we cannot know.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Mind you, I am 'catholic' enough, I suppose, to find some irony in Kaplan's citation of how the church is defined credally when it was the Catholic/Orthodox Church (the terms were coterminous at that time) of the 4th century which defined those creeds in the first place.
Ok, that still begs the question of where it leaves the rest of us - Copts and Protestants and so on - and also which of the separated RC / Orthodox bodies are, in fact, the right candidate for being the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Let's take the issues that Kaplan identifies - unity, sanctity, catholicity and apostolicity.
UNITY
One might well ask what level of unity there is within Protestantism and how it is recognised and defined.
I don't believe some of the more exaggerated figures as to how many Protestant denominations there actually are - but arguably there are still far too many.
SANCTITY
Hmmm ... we all seem to fall down on that one ... but it depends on how we define and recognise it, of course.
CATHOLICITY
Again, how do we demonstrate that? How do we demonstrate that within Protestant circles? Do we even do so?
APOSTOLICITY
Well, again, how do we define and identify that? Most Protestants are wary of 'apostolic succession'. So how do we define Apostolicity? Congruence with the apostolic deposit and record as found in Holy Writ? Well, we must then first agree on what that actually consists of ...
There are head-spinning problems all ways round.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Hatless, modesty and humility.
How do we define and recognise these qualities?
Again, it depends on where we're standing.
From a Protestant perspective the position of the RCC and the Orthodox Churches looks immodest and lacking in humility? 'What?! Are you saying that you are the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? What about the rest of us?'
From a more Catholic perspective, the Protestant stance appears immodest and lacking in humility.
'Look, we reserve the right to decide what's best despite what you believe and despite Tradition and all the rest of it ...'
I'm not saying that modesty and humility lie purely in the eye of the beholder ... but context makes a difference here too.
What looks immodest to some is someone else's sincere conviction.
What looks lacking in humility to some appears to be boldness and conviction to others.
These things cut both ways ... but I take the point you're making.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But while IngoB thinks that he can be certain that God will turn up, endorse the RC sacraments, save good RCs, however you wish to put it, I think Ad Orientem, despite using the phrase 'be sure' is actually saying there is no guarantee.
My reaction is that if unity is so important, then this acknowledgement that there is no guarantee is very important. There can be no unity without modesty and humility.
Let me put it another way, that whilst belonging to what I believe to be the Church by itself is no guarantee of my own salvation, in the ordinary run of things belonging to the Church is necessary if I wish to saved. The distinction may be subtle but it is there nonetheless. If God does save anyone outside the Church, we don't know about it and so for all intended purposes there is no salvation outside of the Church. And just for the record I do believe that the Holy Spirit is always at work in the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church, that is we know for sure (guaranteed). However, this medicine also requires our cooperation.
[ 07. July 2015, 12:57: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But while IngoB thinks that he can be certain that God will turn up, endorse the RC sacraments, save good RCs, however you wish to put it, I think Ad Orientem, despite using the phrase 'be sure' is actually saying there is no guarantee.
My reaction is that if unity is so important, then this acknowledgement that there is no guarantee is very important. There can be no unity without modesty and humility.
Let me put it another way, that whilst belonging to what I believe to be the Church by itself is no guarantee of my own salvation, in the ordinary run of things belonging to the Church is necessary if I wish to saved. The distinction may be subtle but it is there nonetheless. If God does save anyone outside the Church, we don't know about it and so for all intended purposes there is no salvation outside of the Church. And just for the record I do believe that the Holy Spirit is always at work in the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church, that is we know for sure (guaranteed). However, this medicine also requires our cooperation.
Not so modest after all. Ah well ...
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But while IngoB thinks that he can be certain that God will turn up, endorse the RC sacraments, save good RCs, however you wish to put it, I think Ad Orientem, despite using the phrase 'be sure' is actually saying there is no guarantee. My reaction is that if unity is so important, then this acknowledgement that there is no guarantee is very important. There can be no unity without modesty and humility.
I have not made a single post on this thread (prior to this one). In general, I would prefer to speak my own mind on issues, rather than having it spoken for me. I rarely find myself in good agreement with what others believe I might say...
It is a de fide dogma of the RCC that "Without special Divine revelation nobody can know with certainty of faith whether he stands in the state of grace." This obviously includes all RCs, and is one key disagreement of the RCC with many Protestants. The assumption "I'm (in fact) saved" is to RCs the grave sin of presumption, which is a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope by excess, as that virtue is opposed by the vice of despair in lack. The RCC also has the de fide dogmas that "Without God's special help, the justified cannot remain in the received justification till the end." and that "Without God's special privilege of grace, the justified is not able to avoid all sin, even the venial kind, throughout his entire life." and that "Not only holy members belong to the church, but also sinners."
The idea that RCs consider themselves to be "in the clear" with God by virtue of being RCs is entirely mistaken, and in fact historically ironic: they fought the Reformation in part to maintain that this cannot be so. Many Protestants feel that they are saved because, well, they had some dramatic feeling of being saved. But for exceedingly rare exceptions (RCs who receive direct vision from God), RCs know that they are saved only when Christ tells them so, after their death - or after the Second Coming for those who live to see it.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Ah, there's the OP hiding in the corner...
I guess I'd want to ask a bit more about this person. I can understand how this person might be "being prompted by God's call into the sacramental ministry of presiding over the Eucharist", but why is it that they are "not called into the priesthood"?
By that is it meant that they experience God's call as being to something other than priestly ministry? But you don't say that, you say they are *not* called to priesthood. So, is it something else about this person which means it is impossible for them to serve as a priest? Are they married and Roman Catholic? Are they female and Roman Catholic?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Hatless, modesty and humility.
How do we define and recognise these qualities?
Again, it depends on where we're standing.
From a Protestant perspective the position of the RCC and the Orthodox Churches looks immodest and lacking in humility? 'What?! Are you saying that you are the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? What about the rest of us?'
From a more Catholic perspective, the Protestant stance appears immodest and lacking in humility.
'Look, we reserve the right to decide what's best despite what you believe and despite Tradition and all the rest of it ...'
I'm not saying that modesty and humility lie purely in the eye of the beholder ... but context makes a difference here too.
What looks immodest to some is someone else's sincere conviction.
What looks lacking in humility to some appears to be boldness and conviction to others.
These things cut both ways ... but I take the point you're making.
If a group says 'We're right and everyone else is wrong' then they could be correct. It would be worth investigating. If two groups each say 'We're right and everyone else, including that other lot, is wrong,' then clearly they can't both be right, and the claim of the second group actually diminishes the claim of the first, even before you've investigated it. This being right or wrong thing is clearly the sort of thing that people like to be exclusive about even when they are wrong. Either group may be wrong, at least one of them must be, and at least one of them desires to be exclusive though it is wrong. Perhaps they both are.
When you add in Fundamentalists, HyperCalvinists (there are still a few around), the various schizmatic RC groups and a load of others you can name better than most of us, Gamaliel, then clearly there are far too many people claiming to be the one and only. It could be that one of them is right, and perhaps a blindfold and a pin would help us find them, but more likely we'd decide not to treat any claim of being the one true Church as being the sort of claim to verifiable, objective truth it appears to be, but more like some sort of branding slogan; something to distinguish it from its rivals, or to establish a particular identity to its adherents.
Then we might think about members of other faiths. Can it be that the evidence in favour of Islam is so much more convincing in Iran than it is in Sri Lanka? Is it not clearly the case that family, schooling, culture and all the stories and styles of thought that are so close to us we hardly even see them actually matter much more than any sort of rational analysis of a set of beliefs or teachings?
I never decided to become a Christian rather than a Sikh; I grew up in the UK in the 1960s and 70s. It was the only religion with branches around, and it was the one in the literature, law, music and art of my culture. I never decided to become a Baptist rather than a RC, but my parents were non-conformists, and I had a girlfriend who sang in the choir at the Baptist church.
Listening to a member of an Orthodox church saying 'We're the one true Church, and there is no salvation to all intended purposes outside this Church' is pretty much like listening to a Spurs fan saying 'There's only one team in London and it's Tottenham Hotspur FC.'
At the match it might make some sort of sense in a collective identity building way. As a statement about football teams that might be part of a discussion on Match of the Day it has no value. As a comment almost anywhere else, it's a bit of silliness.
Pointing that out is not an equivalent bit of immodesty. Nor is, I think, pointing out that denominational exclusivity and one-upmanship is without value in a multi-denominational context, and pretty daft when you think of the number of faiths that have to co-exist on the planet.
I think that God is unknowable. I think that's what good, classic theology teaches - all that talk of ineffability. It's what Calvin thought with his talk of God's sovereignty. It's what the pre-Reformation churches with their understanding of mystery understood. It's what scripture communicates with it's God who will be free in the OT, and Jesus who astounds everyone he meets.
God's otherness, more-ness, beyondness isn't incidental, but essential to God's character, I believe. All fundamentalisms claim in their own way to have God on a chain, and I find them very depressing. It seems to me that you can find people within perhaps any denomination who are better than this. Some of my favourite theologians are RCs, and some of the books I most look forward to understanding when I finally grow up are by Orthodox writers.
I am a Spurs fan, but I don't feel any desire to sing 'We hate Arsenal, and we hate Arsenal.' I am a Baptist, but I hope I'm something bigger, too - a person who is working out a faith that speaks to the human race, not just the slot I happened to fall into.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But while IngoB thinks that he can be certain that God will turn up, endorse the RC sacraments, save good RCs, however you wish to put it, I think Ad Orientem, despite using the phrase 'be sure' is actually saying there is no guarantee. My reaction is that if unity is so important, then this acknowledgement that there is no guarantee is very important. There can be no unity without modesty and humility.
I have not made a single post on this thread (prior to this one). In general, I would prefer to speak my own mind on issues, rather than having it spoken for me. I rarely find myself in good agreement with what others believe I might say...
It is a de fide dogma of the RCC that "Without special Divine revelation nobody can know with certainty of faith whether he stands in the state of grace." This obviously includes all RCs, and is one key disagreement of the RCC with many Protestants. The assumption "I'm (in fact) saved" is to RCs the grave sin of presumption, which is a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope by excess, as that virtue is opposed by the vice of despair in lack. The RCC also has the de fide dogmas that "Without God's special help, the justified cannot remain in the received justification till the end." and that "Without God's special privilege of grace, the justified is not able to avoid all sin, even the venial kind, throughout his entire life." and that "Not only holy members belong to the church, but also sinners."
The idea that RCs consider themselves to be "in the clear" with God by virtue of being RCs is entirely mistaken, and in fact historically ironic: they fought the Reformation in part to maintain that this cannot be so. Many Protestants feel that they are saved because, well, they had some dramatic feeling of being saved. But for exceedingly rare exceptions (RCs who receive direct vision from God), RCs know that they are saved only when Christ tells them so, after their death - or after the Second Coming for those who live to see it.
Well that is a genuinely modest statement, and it's good to read it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Hatless, modesty and humility.
How do we define and recognise these qualities?
Again, it depends on where we're standing.
From a Protestant perspective the position of the RCC and the Orthodox Churches looks immodest and lacking in humility? 'What?! Are you saying that you are the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? What about the rest of us?'
From a more Catholic perspective, the Protestant stance appears immodest and lacking in humility.
'Look, we reserve the right to decide what's best despite what you believe and despite Tradition and all the rest of it ...'
I'm not saying that modesty and humility lie purely in the eye of the beholder ... but context makes a difference here too.
What looks immodest to some is someone else's sincere conviction.
What looks lacking in humility to some appears to be boldness and conviction to others.
These things cut both ways ... but I take the point you're making.
If a group says 'We're right and everyone else is wrong' then they could be correct. It would be worth investigating. If two groups each say 'We're right and everyone else, including that other lot, is wrong,' then clearly they can't both be right, and the claim of the second group actually diminishes the claim of the first, even before you've investigated it. This being right or wrong thing is clearly the sort of thing that people like to be exclusive about even when they are wrong. Either group may be wrong, at least one of them must be, and at least one of them desires to be exclusive though it is wrong. Perhaps they both are.
When you add in Fundamentalists, HyperCalvinists (there are still a few around), the various schizmatic RC groups and a load of others you can name better than most of us, Gamaliel, then clearly there are far too many people claiming to be the one and only. It could be that one of them is right, and perhaps a blindfold and a pin would help us find them, but more likely we'd decide not to treat any claim of being the one true Church as being the sort of claim to verifiable, objective truth it appears to be, but more like some sort of branding slogan; something to distinguish it from its rivals, or to establish a particular identity to its adherents.
Then we might think about members of other faiths. Can it be that the evidence in favour of Islam is so much more convincing in Iran than it is in Sri Lanka? Is it not clearly the case that family, schooling, culture and all the stories and styles of thought that are so close to us we hardly even see them actually matter much more than any sort of rational analysis of a set of beliefs or teachings?
I never decided to become a Christian rather than a Sikh; I grew up in the UK in the 1960s and 70s. It was the only religion with branches around, and it was the one in the literature, law, music and art of my culture. I never decided to become a Baptist rather than a RC, but my parents were non-conformists, and I had a girlfriend who sang in the choir at the Baptist church.
Listening to a member of an Orthodox church saying 'We're the one true Church, and there is no salvation to all intended purposes outside this Church' is pretty much like listening to a Spurs fan saying 'There's only one team in London and it's Tottenham Hotspur FC.'
At the match it might make some sort of sense in a collective identity building way. As a statement about football teams that might be part of a discussion on Match of the Day it has no value. As a comment almost anywhere else, it's a bit of silliness.
Pointing that out is not an equivalent bit of immodesty. Nor is, I think, pointing out that denominational exclusivity and one-upmanship is without value in a multi-denominational context, and pretty daft when you think of the number of faiths that have to co-exist on the planet.
I think that God is unknowable. I think that's what good, classic theology teaches - all that talk of ineffability. It's what Calvin thought with his talk of God's sovereignty. It's what the pre-Reformation churches with their understanding of mystery understood. It's what scripture communicates with it's God who will be free in the OT, and Jesus who astounds everyone he meets.
God's otherness, more-ness, beyondness isn't incidental, but essential to God's character, I believe. All fundamentalisms claim in their own way to have God on a chain, and I find them very depressing. It seems to me that you can find people within perhaps any denomination who are better than this. Some of my favourite theologians are RCs, and some of the books I most look forward to understanding when I finally grow up are by Orthodox writers.
I am a Spurs fan, but I don't feel any desire to sing 'We hate Arsenal, and we hate Arsenal.' I am a Baptist, but I hope I'm something bigger, too - a person who is working out a faith that speaks to the human race, not just the slot I happened to fall into.
God is knowable inasmuch as he has chosen to reveal himself to us. That is classic Christian theology, otherwise one has to wonder what on earth the Arian controversy, for example, was about. To just state by itself "God is unkowable" but then, for instance, confess the Creed is utter nonsense.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Is He kind?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
But God's self revelation is personal not propositional. God does not give Godself up to our knowing, but offers us relationship.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
no unity at all if it cannot be seen.
Why?
The nature of a body is tangible and its unity is therefore tangible too. If that does not exist then there is no body.
Not if the term body is being used metaphorically.
If 'body' were merely a metaphor, then whither incarnation?
The Church is Christ's body here on earth - and Christ's body, incarnate = in flesh = bodily.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - and all the Orthodox writers I've read - and hope to be able to understand when I grow up - say the same.
In fact, the big beef that the Orthodox have with the 'West' is the tendency the 'West' has to over-categorise everything and try to pin things down in a Scholastic kind of way ...
So, yes, whilst they would agree with Calvin that God is essentially unknowable (but knowable to the the extent, through his 'energies' that he chooses to reveal Himself) they would carp at CalvinISM insofar as they think it tries to pin things down in Scholastic terms ...
The Five Points of This, the Seven Points of That, the 15.325 Points of Something Else ...
So far, so good, I'm with them on that.
What they will be far more particular and definitive about, though, are the boundaries of what they consider the Church - although as the popular Orthodox saying goes, 'We can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not ...'
So, they believe themselves to be on safe ground in saying 'That Church over there is part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' on the grounds that it is constituted properly and in relationship with an Orthodox Bishop. They don't then go on to argue that everyone who meets with that congregation is necessarily 'saved' or necessarily any more holy, righteous and good than those in the church down the road that they are more iffy about.
My experience of the Orthodox is that they seem to have a kind of concentric circles view - with various groups and churches being seen as closer to them than others - depending on what criteria we're using. So, for instance, they'd see Anglo-Catholics as being closer to them than Baptists, say, on account of their eucharistic theology -- but they might also accept that individual Baptists are closer to aspects of Orthodoxy in other ways ...
There are times when I think Orthodoxy is little more than an exotic and more fundamentalist form of High Church Anglicanism ... but at other times I think there's way more to it than that.
I'm not disagreeing with your essential point, but I would say that we make a mistake in dialogue with the Orthodox if we insist on making some kind of correlation - in Protestant terms - with the sum total of the 'Church' - in whatever way we understand that - and the sum total of the 'saved'.
In my experience both RCs and Orthodox - for all their hardline sense of clarity of where and what the Church is - tend to me a heck of a lot more generous than most conservative evangelicals, for instance, in their concept of who might ultimately be saved -- and that doesn't stop at the boundaries of Christianity as far as they are concerned.
What they are effectively saying is, 'That we can say with certainty that all the right ingredients are there - at least potentially - within our churches to effect salvation ... we can't say the same about yours.'
They seem perfectly willing to accept that there are Baptists, Methodists, RCs, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Muslims, Hindus or whatever else who are a lot better people than they are or a lot more likely to be saved as it were ... but they can't comment on that ...
At least, that's the gist of it as it's come across to me. That said, you do come across jerks - particularly on social media forums - who roundly condemn anyone who isn't Orthodox and chunter on and on and on and on about this that or the other wicked and nefarious feature of the 'delinquent West' ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, I cross-posted with leo and my response about the Orthodox 'saying the same' was in response to this post by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But God's self revelation is personal not propositional. God does not give Godself up to our knowing, but offers us relationship.
Any Orthodox who knows their stuff would tell you that - as far as I can see.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
leo - nothing is 'merely' a metaphor. But you knew that already. I'm thinking of the Magritte painting on which he wrote,"Ceci n'est pas une pipe".
Sign and symbol ... do they share in the reality of the signified?
Christ's physical body is now in heaven - if we take a traditional view of the resurrection - so in that sense it is not 'here'.
But it another sense, of course, his Body is here - as the Church is an icon of Christ - an incarnation in some way ...
'Great is the mystery of faith, He appeared in a body ...'
Protestant Christians like Kaplan will be fully aware of that, of course - but they wouldn't necessarily make the connection in as 'realised' a way - if I can put it like that - as more Catholic Christians would.
We get into all this sign and signifier stuff again ... the relationship between the sign and the reality to which it points ...
The Church is mystically the Body of Christ ... but his physical body is elsewhere ...
Interestingly, coming back to the sacraments element - I only realised recently that RCs didn't believe themselves to be cannibalising a 1st century Palestinian Jews when they eat the Body of Christ - but they 'feed' in some way on the risen and ascended and glorified Christ ...
Now that's got my head spinning ...
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Ah, there's the OP hiding in the corner...
I guess I'd want to ask a bit more about this person. I can understand how this person might be "being prompted by God's call into the sacramental ministry of presiding over the Eucharist", but why is it that they are "not called into the priesthood"?
By that is it meant that they experience God's call as being to something other than priestly ministry? But you don't say that, you say they are *not* called to priesthood. So, is it something else about this person which means it is impossible for them to serve as a priest? Are they married and Roman Catholic? Are they female and Roman Catholic?
None of those objections apply iamchristianhearmeroar, the man expressed that he has a calling to this specific service and does not have a calling into the holy order or to any of the other priestly functions.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If 'body' were merely a metaphor, then whither incarnation?
The NT uses the word body in a number of senses, and Christ's incarnational body which was born, lived, died, rose and ascended is not the same as his body the church which his incarnational body purchased.
quote:
The Church is Christ's body here on earth - and Christ's body, incarnate = in flesh = bodily.
The fact that the church consists of literal people with bodies does not obviate the metaphorical use of body for the church, which is developed in passages such as the very obviously metaphorical I Corinthians 12.
The same metaphor is common elsewhere to describe actual people eg a body of troops, or an army corps.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
The I Peter passage on priesthood does not mention baptism.
I agree that faith should be accompanied by baptism, but I am certainly not prepared to say that unbaptised believers (eg Salvos, or those who put their faith in Christ and died before the opportunity for baptism) are or were not Christians.
Are you?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
Which?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Heh. It is possible to make the case that the true baptism discussed in those passages is not the baptism of water practiced by the churches anyway.
A position held by Fox and Penn and other early Quakers (who, it seems, believed that true baptism was something that happened within the believer) and that water baptism was a fake.
Which is a different take on things one does not tend to hear today.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
As far as I can see, there are various long-standing and internally consistant positions on these issues. The trouble is that they cannot really be interrogated by those who argue from a different base belief.
That said, they clearly cannot all be true as they are contradictory. They can, though, all be false.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Heh. It is possible to make the case that the true baptism discussed in those passages is not the baptism of water practiced by the churches anyway.
A position held by Fox and Penn and other early Quakers (who, it seems, believed that true baptism was something that happened within the believer) and that water baptism was a fake.
Which is a different take on things one does not tend to hear today.
No you don't because it's clearly nonsense.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No you don't because it's clearly nonsense.
Oh right. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No you don't because it's clearly nonsense.
Oh right. Thanks for clearing that up.
My pleasure.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was being sarcastic. It is not possible to whitewash other beliefs by just asserting they are nonsense. In Fox's case, the argument is quite strong, albeit based on a completely different way of thinking.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was being sarcastic. It is not possible to whitewash other beliefs by just asserting they are nonsense. In Fox's case, the argument is quite strong, albeit based on a completely different way of thinking.
What it does is create a false dichotony, separating the spiritual change from the physical act. That's why it's nonsense. Neither does the Apostle's analogy of being buried and rising again make any sense without the physical act of being baptised with water.
[ 09. July 2015, 08:09: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
hat it does is create a false dichotony, separating the spiritual change from the physical act. That's why it's nonsense. Neither does the Apostle's analogy of being buried and rising again make any sense without the physical act of being baptised with water.
I am not Fox, but his point seems to be that a) the disciples were not baptised with water when they were called b) Jesus stated that he did not baptise anyone c) that there is a clear difference between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and John's water baptism.
I don't think you are proving a dichotomy exists - why could the old man not die when the Holy Spirit baptises within?
I don't think either of your points here prove this idea to be nonsense, just that you lack the tools to interrogate an idea that is so alien to your way of thinking.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
A and B is no argument at all, especially since we see the Apostles themselves baptising with water. As for C no one is confusing the two. The strongest argument of all, however, is the continuous practice of the Church which has always understood it as a physical act through which the Holy Spirit brings about a spiritual effect.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Mm. I am not sure that is 'no argument at all', but I don't know what Fox said about the disciples baptising. I'd guess he probably said something about retaining Jewish rituals and links to the discussions on circumcision in the epistles.
And many think that an argument from authority, or history is no argument at all.
Anyway, I am not arguing the toss about Fox because I don't know much about it and nobody seems to hold this as a belief today anyway.
I just think you should be a whole lot less dismissive about other people's beliefs, particularly when it is obvious that understandings are completely different on major points of contention.
Whilst clearly not everyone can be right, that does not mean that you have the strongest argument because you can point to history. If one does not accept the value of an argument from history/authority, this becomes quite a weak argument. Of course, given how strongly you hold this, it is also not very surprising how you are unable to see the strength of other positions.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
The I Peter passage on priesthood does not mention baptism.
The whole petrine passage echoes Exodus 19:6 – there it was circumcision. 1 Peter 3:21 explains the role of baptism in all this later on. It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
Which?
which what?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon
By whom?
[ 09. July 2015, 13:33: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon
By whom?
[Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]Apparently by Martin Dibelius, E Richard Perdelwitz, B H Streeter, H Preisker, and F L Cross. [/Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]
no doubt others have followed in their footsteps.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I wonder how the original readers would have heard it. It is not a particularly original idea to read backwards into the text your own religious behaviour.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
The I Peter passage on priesthood does not mention baptism.
The whole petrine passage echoes Exodus 19:6 – there it was circumcision. 1 Peter 3:21 explains the role of baptism in all this later on. It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon.
Interesting but irrelevant, unless you believe that an unbaptised believer is not a Christian at all.
Do you?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon
By whom?
[Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]Apparently by Martin Dibelius, E Richard Perdelwitz, B H Streeter, H Preisker, and F L Cross. [/Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]
no doubt others have followed in their footsteps.
None of whom would be considered to be holding a mainstream view today
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT also teaches the priesthood of all believers.
In scripture the 'royal priesthood' is of the baptised - not merely 'believers'.
Which?
which what?
Scripture.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon
By whom?
[Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]Apparently by Martin Dibelius, E Richard Perdelwitz, B H Streeter, H Preisker, and F L Cross. [/Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]
no doubt others have followed in their footsteps.
None of whom would be considered to be holding a mainstream view today
Yes, I think that's fair. A little further reading suggests that it was a view that had some following in 'the academy' 30 years ago, or more, but is nowadays very largely rejected. The mainstream view now seems to be that 1 Peter was genuinely composed as an epistle, but may incorporate some themes/ language from baptismal practice.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
[/qb][/QUOTE]None of whom would be considered to be holding a mainstream view today [/QB][/QUOTE]
By whom?
This seems to be the nub of the issue here - who says so?
I've no idea whether these authors are considered mainstream or not - but by which criteria do we decide whether they are or aren't?
mr cheesy suggests to Ad Orientem that there is a view that arguments from history or tradition aren't valid - and he's right - there are arguments that suggest as much ...
But on what authority?
People who generally say that history or tradition aren't a valid basis for argument are themselves arguing from the standpoint of a particular tradition - their own ...
As soon as you have two or three people agreeing on anything you get a tradition. There's no way around that.
In the instance of George Fox, he was roundly condemned at the time not only by the religious Establishment in the form of the Anglican church but also by other non-conformists. If you read Bunyan on the Quakers you'll find just as much polemic against them than you would if you were to consider Anglican objections to them at that time.
In New England, the Puritans actually executed some Quakers as heretics.
We all argue within our respective paradigms. George Fox's views would certainly appear 'nonsense' within a highly sacramentalised tradition such as Ad Orientem's. They might appear less nonsensical if you are coming at it from a less sacramental direction ...
The issue then, it seems to me, is less about the strength or otherwise of George Fox's arguments but the basis on which we evaluate it.
Incidentally, I've certainly come across some strange, somewhat marginalised (and quite short-lived?) groups who appear to hold to similar views to Fox when it comes to baptism ... I don't know if the are still around but there was a pretty extreme Australian group with roots in the Jesus Movement of the 1960s which used to hold this - among other things.
On two occasions, in two separate churches, I've known them come into charismatic evangelical churches and get up and denounce the preacher (as the early Quakers did) or else disrupt the proceedings in some way. In one instance, a Baptist church, they had one of the girls on the worship-band team in tears. They disapproved of the way she was dressed and roundly condemned her for it ...
This group had no historic links with the Quakers as far as I know and their stock in trade seemed to be to 'spiritualise' absolutely everything so that baptism or any other ordinances / sacraments (or whatever we call them in our respective churches and traditions) were somehow seen as 'legalistic' and worthy of condemnation ...
Did they have a strong argument?
On what basis could/should the leaders of the churches whose meetings they disrupted take issue with them or respond?
The point is, they would have been seen as well out of order by any commonly accepted bog-standard evangelical or nonconformist criteria ...
And rightly so.
But the judgement on which that is based is itself based upon history and tradition ...
Because we can none of us elide history and tradition. None of us sit above or outside of it.
Even if we don't have Tradition with a capital t we have small t traditions. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise hasn't thought it through properly ...
Cut it however we may even the most Sola Scriptura among us are 'scripture and tradition' merchants - in that case scripture and the Sola Scriptura tradition ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Bro James (cross-posted) ... that makes sense.
I came across the view the other day that the Passion narratives in Mark's Gospel - which take up a large proportion of that Gospel - may have been based on some kind of early liturgy - a kind of 'Stations of the Cross' approach with the refrain, 'Here is not here, he is risen ...' at key stages or 'stations'.
I found that quite an imaginative view, to be honest, and not unattractive ... although I'd hesitate to formalise it and go round saying that this was definitely how those passages were conceived ...
I get the impression that 30 years or so ago it was pretty fashionable to find liturgical/litany elements in the Psalms, for instance - and whilst it's clear that these are there in may instances - this tendency was extended so far that almost anything in the Psalms was seen to be based on some kind of long-lost liturgical practice ...
So, there's a balance.
I think the most we can say from the Petrine epistles is that baptism was certainly pretty central to Christian initiation back then.
I'd go further and suggest it should be pretty normative.
I wouldn't go so far, though, as to suggest that those Christians who don't practice Trinitarian baptism with water - like the Salvation Army - are somehow not 'proper' Christians or not Christians at all.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
mr cheesy suggests to Ad Orientem that there is a view that arguments from history or tradition aren't valid - and he's right - there are arguments that suggest as much ...
But on what authority?
People who generally say that history or tradition aren't a valid basis for argument are themselves arguing from the standpoint of a particular tradition - their own ...
No, I think it is a bit more complicated than asserting the differences are a matter of one set of historical traditions versus another. I think it is a genuine, fundamental difference in the theology of how God interacts with the church.
If we are here using the example of Fox as the far end of a protestant extreme, the theology is that God the Holy Spirit speaks directly to the individual, and that these words are of more value than years of historical precedence.
I would argue we see this kind of thinking (although rarely as starkly, for fairly obvious reasons) in many Protestant churches, particularly those of the Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregational tradition. And yes, I know I just used the word tradition!
The stark difference is therefore between those who hold a theology that God speaks partly/mostly through the ancient traditions of the church and those who say that God speaks directly to the individual.
I know is isn't as cut-and-dried as that for most people (particularly given that almost all churches how have centuries of tradition), but I think these two ways of thinking are mutually exclusive. If you value tradition over spirit-prompting, you'll just dismiss the other as froth. And vice-versa.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, I think it is a bit more complicated than asserting the differences are a matter of one set of historical traditions versus another. I think it is a genuine, fundamental difference in the theology of how God interacts with the church.
If we are here using the example of Fox as the far end of a protestant extreme, the theology is that God the Holy Spirit speaks directly to the individual, and that these words are of more value than years of historical precedence.
I would argue we see this kind of thinking (although rarely as starkly, for fairly obvious reasons) in many Protestant churches, particularly those of the Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregational tradition. And yes, I know I just used the word tradition!
The stark difference is therefore between those who hold a theology that God speaks partly/mostly through the ancient traditions of the church and those who say that God speaks directly to the individual.
I know is isn't as cut-and-dried as that for most people (particularly given that almost all churches how have centuries of tradition), but I think these two ways of thinking are mutually exclusive. If you value tradition over spirit-prompting, you'll just dismiss the other as froth. And vice-versa.
And yet, if we take Jesus as our example, scripture and tradition were upheld as well as direct guidance being received from God the Father - by whom the scripture and tradition was illuminated, and re-translated where people had led it astray.
Don't we continue to limit our concept of God by narrowing our minds into one channel, rather than opening them up to all possibilities?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes - but Jesus is God and you and I aren't.
At what point does 'direct revelation' become illuminism?
I'd have thought that we can be guided through scripture and tradition ... or scripture and Tradition (Big T) provided we conclude - as per the RCC or the Orthodox that Big Tradition is commensurate with scripture ...
Any 'direct' communication or 'revelation' on top of that must therefore be commensurate with scripture and tradition.
I say scripture and tradition because, for the life of me, I don't see so-called Sola Scriptura as a tenable position - although I might be persuaded that - properly understood - Sola Scriptura does not equate to 'solo' scriptura ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The Orthodox and RCs, of course, would say that they aren't limiting God to 'one channel' (ie. Holy Tradition - which includes scripture) but that they can be certain that this particular channel is one through which God speaks.
Rather like tuning into a radio. If I turn my dial to particular co-ordinates, I know I'm going to get Radio 3 or Radio 4, for instance. Turn it to another co-ordinate and I'll get another radio station - but it might not necessarily be the BBC.
There might be the same music on Classic FM, say, as Radio 3 - but it's still not a BBC radio station.
That doesn't imply that the music is any better or any worse - it's not a value judgement on the content.
But if I want BBC programmes, it's the BBC I need to tune into.
The more Catholic traditions, of course, see their Tradition itself as pneumatic - hence the 'high' view of sacraments and offices etc.
It seems to me, the older I get, that the 'lower' end of the spectrum simply have a more lower-case approach than an upper-case one, as it were ...
As for whether God speaks to and guides people within each, all or any of these different traditions and approaches - well, yes, that would certainly seem to be the case.
So, there is a common frequency and wave-length. I s'pose what I'm more reluctant to say is that it's possible to determine exactly where that frequency and wavelength becomes fuzzy in either direction.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Again, I am just bringing this up as a way to counter-balance the conversation rather than trying to advocate for it.
I think the argument is that if we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we will be able to do the things which Jesus did - including the reinterpretation of dry traditions to make them relevant for today, the uprooting of deeply held religious doctrines and so on. In that sense, I think there are many who would say that all tradition is of much lesser use than direct communication and communion with the Holy Spirit.
Of course, I can also see that there is an implicit contradiction in that.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes - but Jesus is God and you and I aren't.
At what point does 'direct revelation' become illuminism?
I'd have thought that we can be guided through scripture and tradition ... or scripture and Tradition (Big T) provided we conclude - as per the RCC or the Orthodox that Big Tradition is commensurate with scripture ...
Any 'direct' communication or 'revelation' on top of that must therefore be commensurate with scripture and tradition.
I say scripture and tradition because, for the life of me, I don't see so-called Sola Scriptura as a tenable position - although I might be persuaded that - properly understood - Sola Scriptura does not equate to 'solo' scriptura ...
If God in three persons dwells in us and we in him, direct communication cannot be denied. This is not directed to illuminism in which individuals declare themselves to be special, but to every Christian who declares God to be special.
When God calls, God's calling must be confirmed, and one of the methods of discernment is to ensure that it conforms to the scriptures and tradition - but not necessarily to any distorted human translations that have been handed on: as with Jesus.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - I understand that, mr cheesy and can understand your motive and intention.
I don''t have a problem with what you are saying necessarily.
In terms of what traditions can be 'dry' and so on - it strikes me that what some people find dry and lifeless others find life-enhancing and uplifting.
I had an interesting conversation with an RC priest last year who - whilst not being a charismatic himself and, in many ways wary of the charismatic thing both in the RCC and elsewhere - felt that many RC charismatics had found a new level of devotion in terms of traditional RC practices - Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament - for instance - or a renewed appetite for the Mass.
Whilst not disagreeing with the nub of what you're saying, I'd suggest to some extent that 'dryness' can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder.
In my 20s, I'd have found traditional Anglican worship - say - pretty dry and boring - although I didn't mind it by way of a change every now and then -- in my 50s I find the standard praise-chorus format of many contemporary evangelical charismatic churches to be intensely dry and boring ... it 'does nothing' for me whatsoever. I'd rather attend choral evensong or sit at home with a book and a cuppa.
Yes, we need the help of God the Holy Spirit to quicken us and stir our spiritual appetite - as it were - but how that's expressed and what traditions or practices may help or hinder that is going to remain a moot point - and it depends on a whole range of factors.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I 'get' all that Raptor's Eye - but how we decide/discern which traditions have been distorted?
Many Protestants, for instance, would see the whole RC approach to the Mass as being a distortion. The Orthodox less so, but they might still take issue with the way the Real Presence is framed and articulated in an RC context.
Conversely, RCs and Orthodox would see a more Zwinglian approach to the Lord's Supper as something of a distortion ...
Both would claim to have the Holy Spirit.
How do we decide who is right and who is wrong over an issue like that?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Yes, but my point is not to make a personal statement about who is right, but to say that there is a fundamental difference here which cannot be interrogated by someone who sees it on a completely different fundamental theological level.
I also do not think that fence-sitting works in this context.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I mean on the level that Fox and someone who takes a hard-line view on the Apostolic succession cannot both be right.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I mean on the level that Fox and someone who takes a hard-line view on the Apostolic succession cannot both be right.
That is logically indisputable, but in terms of logic, nothing in that statement prevents both of them from being wrong, or even partially correct, but as to different parts.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I 'get' all that Raptor's Eye - but how we decide/discern which traditions have been distorted?
Many Protestants, for instance, would see the whole RC approach to the Mass as being a distortion. The Orthodox less so, but they might still take issue with the way the Real Presence is framed and articulated in an RC context.
Conversely, RCs and Orthodox would see a more Zwinglian approach to the Lord's Supper as something of a distortion ...
Both would claim to have the Holy Spirit.
How do we decide who is right and who is wrong over an issue like that?
ALL are distorted. ALL theology is heresy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well, yes I agree that one can attempt to uphold both at some level, but in doing so is creating a theology which is unacceptable to the others. The 'middle ground' does not suddenly become acceptable to everyone.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - yes, I agree with that mr cheesy and I would certainly come off the fence when it came to George Fox's views.
The guy was clearly mentally disturbed, for a kick-off ...
'Great wits are sure to madness near allied -
And thin partitions do their bounds divide.'
I'd have him down as some kind of provocative 'Holy Fool' though - highlighting some aspects that we can all easily overlook.
But as a model for faith and practice ... ah ah ...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Interesting. I don't think his writings are from someone who is mentally ill, they seem remarkably readable and coherent to me. And his biblical knowledge is sharp.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd also add that you don't have to be a firm advocate of Apostolic Succession and so on to take issue with George Fox -- Bunyan was hardly 'high church' and yet his attacks on the Quakers were blistering.
But I take the point you're making mr cheesy, it's going to be difficult - if not well nigh impossible - for someone with Ad Orientem's views to tackle/evaluate the claims of someone like George Fox - irrespective of how strong or weak their arguments are - as they are coming at these things from such a fundamentally different theological direction.
The same is true in reverse, though, surely?
It would be equally hard for Kaplan Corday, say or hatless to address/evaluate Ad Orientem's views on their own terms as they are both coming from a fundamentally different theological viewpoint.
I don't know how we can square that.
Although seeing someone else's point of view or appreciating where they are coming from doesn't necessarily involve having to agree with them. I'm sure most of us here understand Ad Orientem's position and can recognise the particular interior logic that it carries - even if we don't necessarily subscribe to it or take these things as far as he does.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
You are right, Bunyan was a blistering critic of the Quakers, up to the point when they bailed him out of jail on the bridge at Bedford, or so they say.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've not read a great deal of Fox's journals - it sounds pretty much like other 17th century polemical theological writing to me ...
I've been fascinated by those snippets I have read and would like to read more.
The thing about him being mentally ill comes from what Quakers have told me ... the Quakers I know all think that Fox was pretty crackers to some extent ...
That's based on some of his antics.
But then, they might have been a form of 'theological theatre' and Holy Foolery too, of course - highlighting wrongs by sending them up in a 'prophetic' kind of way.
I'd allow for that.
Of course, it is difficult to comment on the mental state of someone purely from their writings or reports of some of their antics - often written by those who opposed them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Fox was a bit twp - as we would say in South Wales ... not quite a round-shilling.
I wouldn't use that as an argument to accept or dismiss his theology, though. I'd simply suggest that he was challenging the status quo and outward religious observance that overlooked the 'heart' and core of the whole thing - if you like - hence the emphasis on being 'Friends' and finding that of God within everyone.
That, in and of itself, isn't 'against' the Tradition. Indeed, Orthodoxy takes a similar view to anthropology - the image of God is not destroyed but potentially there to be 'realised' in all people.
Where Fox would depart from received tradition - both small t and Big T would be his attempt to 'spiritualise' things in a dualistic kind of way and avoid outward ordinances / ceremonies - rather than seeing them as a 'means of grace' - in Reformed terms - or sacramentally efficacious in either RC or Orthodox terms.
So we are back to the tradition / Tradition again.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
ALL theology is heresy.
That sounds terribly like a theological statement...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Or is it a 'traditional' statement?
And on what basis is it made?
All theology is heresy in relation to what?
My own personal views? That bloke over there's personal views?
We see through a glass darkly - but we still see ...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon
By whom?
most scholars
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
irrelevant, unless you believe that an unbaptised believer is not a Christian at all.
Do you?
an unbaptised person is not a Christian by definition - unless they died after asking for baptism - 'baptism of desire' which doesn 't mean they're not 'saved'
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
ALL theology is heresy.
That sounds terribly like a theological statement...
It's a meaningless statement, though I'm sure it sounds nice.
[ 10. July 2015, 17:08: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Outside of an RC context, that explanation isn't going to work. I was most certainly a believer--a very isolated one--for at least three years before my baptism, and most adult converts can point to a period of hours, days, weeks when they believed before receiving baptism. In fact, that's the norm for adult converts.
Baptism and faith are two sides of the same coin, but they can be (and often are) separated from one another in time, sometimes by years. And there are those who never do receive baptism--though it would be very very squeamish about actually refusing water baptism on any principle, however lofty, as it is very clearly expected in the Scriptures.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often thought that the whole epistle is a baptism sermon
By whom?
most scholars
How about a few examples to back up your claim?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well - these scholars have been cited:
[Grabbing a 30 year old commentary off the shelf]Apparently by Martin Dibelius, E Richard Perdelwitz, B H Streeter, H Preisker, and F L Cross.
But apparently they weren't mainstream enough ...
You guys'll know better than me but I'm not aware of any scholars who hold this particular view - although I think I can see where they got the idea from.
Hasn't Bro James already answered this further upthread?
That whilst it was fashionable at one time to see this particular Petrine epistle as some kind of baptismal sermon it's now considered more likely that whilst baptismal formularies are cited it's not exclusively about that ...
I'm no scholar but that seems pretty obvious to me from reading the epistle itself.
Yes, baptism was - and should be, I'd say - pretty normative but as Lamb Chopped says, if you're an adult convert you're going to be in some kind of believing state before you actually get baptised ...
I don't see how that is in any way incompatible with a 'high' view of baptism or even with traditional and more Catholic views of baptismal regeneration.
Sacraments aren't magic and the process of someone coming to faith will have been in progress before they get baptised and should continue afterwards too. It's not like switching the light on.
Although ... I suppose it is in one way, thinking about it. The electric current is already there. Flicking the switch activates it in some way.
Although like all analogies that can only be stretched so far.
Anyhow - it's God's business not mine to determine who is and isn't a Christian and who is or isn't 'saved' ... whatever view of baptism we take ...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0