Thread: Non-episcopal denominations and Anglican orders 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=023872
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Just a quick question, idly wondering, which I think will wrap up pretty quickly:
The CofE accepts RC orders: an RC priest who converts will not need to be (re-)ordained.
The CofE does not accept the orders of non-episcopal denominations such as the URC, CofS or Methodist church: an e.g. URC presbyter who converts would need to be (re-) ordained.
I have always assumed that a CofE (or for that matter RC) priest who converted to, say, the Methodist Church, URC or CofS would have their orders accepted and would not need (re-)ordination.

Am I correct? Not that I imagine there are many CofE clergy who swim the Tweed or whatever brook it is that flows through Epworth, but I imagine it must have happened.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
We recognise Anglican ordinations and there are people who were ordained as Anglicans and have come into Methodism. Convert Anglican clergy do not need to be ordained but are received into full connexion with the Conference. This means that they are subject to the Conference's discipline and are accounted for by the Conference. Clergy converting from other traditions are often required to serve a time as probationers before being received into full connexion to allow them to learn Methodist ways.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
In the United Church of Canada, all clergy who are Received from other churches (including other United/Uniting, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregationalist ones) have to take five courses on specific United Church of Canada theology, praxis, history and church government from one of our divinity schools. Thiese are to bring their degree up to our standard level, which is called Testamur. Without Testamur you can't be a Minister with us.

Received clergy are then settled for only a year and given close supervision from Presbytery to make sure they transition well.

Clergy who aren't Ordained are Received by Conference (we have 13 of them, they're regional synods).

The only time I ever attended an actual Conference meeting was when a friend was being ordained by Bay of Quinte Conference and at the same meeting Bay of Quinte also received a minister from the United Church of Zambia.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not that I imagine there are many CofE clergy who swim the Tweed or whatever brook it is that flows through Epworth, but I imagine it must have happened.
The the nearest river is the Trent. [Smile]

I have met more than one Anglican-ordained Methodist minister. The positions are not mutually exclusive, some people do both at the same time. I wish we Anglicans extended the same courtesy to Methodist-ordained ministers.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Ireland has the Methodist covenant which allows for it the 'other' way, but that is essentially because the meths talk about ordination. Other reformed churches have commissioning so when they are received into the episci's church they are ordained, rather than re-ordained, although they would be required to do much less 'training' than a first time student just starting out.

On another note along the same lines, the Franciscan order now allows for 'non-denominational' practice in the third order (if that's the right way to put it). In other woods you don't have to be an Anglican to be a full member of the order. I must confess though I haven't really got my head around that one yet
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ireland has the Methodist covenant which allows for it the 'other' way, but that is essentially because the meths talk about ordination. Other reformed churches have commissioning so when they are received into the episci's church they are ordained, rather than re-ordained, although they would be required to do much less 'training' than a first time student just starting out.
Presbyterians ordain, I promise you.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I was going to say.... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Mainstream Reformed churches ordain, they don't commission in fact we ordain rather more than Anglican's do. We are NOT the Salvation Army.

The doctrine of ordination is different but it is still done with the laying on of hands

But are Episcopalians properly ordained.

Well at least at one point they fail, as do Methodists but not Baptists. To be ordained to Word and Sacrament within the tradition you must receive a call to be minister from a local congregation. That is the final test of the vocation before ordination. The whole vocation process withhin the URC is far more communal than the Anglican one. Even within the URC, with its high vacancy to ordinand ratio there are people fully trained to be ministers of Word and Sacrament who are not ordained because no congregation has called them.

Secondly not all URC ministers aren't Episcopally ordained, there are a tiny number who were Moravians and are now URC ministers. This is quite an easy swap as they use one of our training colleges. Even Rome allows that these are Episcopally ordained.

Thirdly it should be noted the roles are not equivalent. The Reformed Minister has quite a bit of the authority of a Bishop, including the fact they teach in their own right. None of this licensing thank you.

What would happen?

I suspect at least a year in college as an individual would need to know Ecclesiol structure, preparation of worship (not the same when you can't just pick up a prayer book) and in England and Scotland (Episcopal to CofS) some training in pastoral care*.

Then the ordination service is a distinctly different thing. It is designed around the minister and the congregation issuing the call. It is a highly individualised service. The laying on of hands is done by representative people of the whole church (some use all ministers present, the URC tends to mix and match non-ministers and ministers but they are chosen symbolically). I can well see cases where someone crossing the boundary may desire to be ordained in the tradition.

What actually happens will almost certainly be sorted out by synod. It maybe a half way house (making the promises to the denomination) or it maybe full blown. We have that freedom. It really does not matter, the essential act of ordination isn't the laying on of hands but the call to preside at communion.

Jengie

*The difference in pastoral care is type, there are I suspect more similarities between CofS and CofE than between CofS and URC or CofE and Episcopal. The CofS and CofE seem to me to centre around the pastoral offices for clerics. The URC, Episcopal are far more relationship based. This has everything to do with being a national church not doctrine. Before the CofS get uptight, I did my pastoral care training under them.

[ 16. September 2012, 06:41: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I have to say I think the language of "properly ordained" is extremely unhelpful, Jengie. Methodists, Baptists and Episcopalians (and doubtless others) are not ordained according to URC procedures because we're not URC. We do not "fail", we just do things according to our tradition. It would be like me saying that URC ministers were not properly ordained because they were not ordained pursuant to a resolution of the Conference.

As a minister in a Methodist/URC LEP (among other places), no one in the URC has ever made the slightest suggestion that I might not be properly ordained. I have to say that I don't think it would ever have crossed their minds to do so.

The real question is what is required for an ordination such that we can recognise it. In Methodist terms, the Conference has set out some criteria (which I can't lay my hands on right now) which are used to assess which ordinations we recognise. Other traditions will no doubt have their own criteria.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by JJ:

quote:

The doctrine of ordination is different.....
I think thats where the issue lies; what in one is called ordination is not quite what is understood as ordination in another, but closer resembles commissioning. I know some Reformed churches do 'ordain' but I was thinking more in terms of Presbyterians and Baptists (sorry I wasn't very clear). To be honest I've never quite got my head around the Presbyterian polity thing. The elected members of the session (who can be called presbyters and elders) help run the church. The minister is also a teaching elder and presbyter, but has the laying on of hands specific to his/her task of teaching in the church. I know there are moves to a better understanding of the place of the Lord's Supper and I know that generally speaking the teaching elder is the only one considered suitable to preside over the Lord's Supper. All that I understand, but the other elders in the session are commissioned, whereas the teaching elder is 'ordained'. So, is that due to the reverence to communion or the role of teaching, or both, or something else?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
What Jengie says is true for Baptists as well. Baptist Union churches have no trouble at all in recognising the ordination of an Anglican working in a Baptist/Anglican LEP, but if an Anglican felt called to exercise ministry within the churches of the Baptist Union, then the normal process of selection and training would apply, shortened, probably, before they could be accredited.

I'm wondering whether at the end of it all they could just have a service of recognition rather than a second ordination. It happens so rarely that I think we would be content to come to an agreement in the individual situation. If a Baptist/Anglican LEP became just a Baptist church, and its Anglican minister wished to remain in pastoral charge, then I'm sure an appropriate process could be devised. I wouldn't bet on it taking less than three years, though!
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

But are Episcopalians properly ordained.

Well at least at one point they fail, as do Methodists but not Baptists. To be ordained to Word and Sacrament within the tradition you must receive a call to be minister from a local congregation. That is the final test of the vocation before ordination.
Well that's not correct. No Anglican deacon (or priest for that matter) can be ordained without a proper title. A title is most normally a pastoral assignment or call to a specific congregation for ministry in that place.

The initial title for first ordination, that of a deacon, is always made or assigned by the diocesan bishop who assigns the pastoral work of all deacons, newly ordained or not. Ordained deacons are not called by congregations, but they are always assigned to work in them. That is no accident because they bear that special and close relationship to the diocesan bishop.

When deacons are later ordained priests, they too most normally have a pastoral cure or position in place either by assignment or call. Elective calls, as such, are normally extended to priests of some year's experience and seniority.

Anglicans do not just ordain clergy and leave them on their own. Ordination requires a real and definitive relationship to an ordinand's sponsoring congregation and also, under the direction of the bishop, to a congregation in which the newly ordained deacon or priest will exercise ministry.
*
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I don't think being assigned to a congregation would count as being called, as far as Baptists are concerned. After all, ministers in training are usually assigned to a congregation. This is set up by a tutor from college or a Regional Minister, and is with the approval of the congregation concerned, but it isn't seen as equivalent to the final call which tests and confirms the process of ministerial recognition.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Agreed. I think the point being made is that ordination (and I have to admit that "commissioning" is a word that does often rear its head in Baptist circles) cannot be seen independently of the call to a congregation: there cannot be a "batch" of ordinations done together at some central point, they usually take place within the condext of an induction service.

Though in my case the ordination was done in a service at the church from which I was "sent", just prior to my induction at the "receiving" church - although many representatives of the latter were present (both were in north London).

[ 16. September 2012, 07:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I think the Anglican re-ordination of non episcopally ordained clergy is not as straight forward as appears.

It is not quite true to say that the Anglican church does not recognise such orders. Some Anglicans hold the view it's just that some churches do it differently, rather than one way only is correct.

I believe in history some ministers have been given parishes without being re ordained.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Seasick

Please note Baptists are fully ordained in URC eyes, yet are not URC. There is a difference here.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by JJ:

quote:

The doctrine of ordination is different.....
I think thats where the issue lies; what in one is called ordination is not quite what is understood as ordination in another, but closer resembles commissioning. I know some Reformed churches do 'ordain' but I was thinking more in terms of Presbyterians and Baptists (sorry I wasn't very clear). To be honest I've never quite got my head around the Presbyterian polity thing. The elected members of the session (who can be called presbyters and elders) help run the church. The minister is also a teaching elder and presbyter, but has the laying on of hands specific to his/her task of teaching in the church. I know there are moves to a better understanding of the place of the Lord's Supper and I know that generally speaking the teaching elder is the only one considered suitable to preside over the Lord's Supper. All that I understand, but the other elders in the session are commissioned, whereas the teaching elder is 'ordained'. So, is that due to the reverence to communion or the role of teaching, or both, or something else?
You are getting induction muddled up with ordination they are two separate ceremonies. The language of ordination is about being set apart/called for specific service. It is life long thing, happening only once*, and recognised throughout the Denomination.

Jengie

*Alright you can be ordained as an elder and as a minister but these are different calls.

[ 16. September 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
This is all a good deal more complex than I had thought but it is very intersting indeed- thanks.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Yes the important thing is the call that comes from the Congregation. No Anglican in England gets that! Assigning is not the same as a call, it is not done by the Congregation for starters.

Jengie
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Where does this significance placed on the call of a congregation come from in scripture or tradition? Surely the apostolic pattern is of being sent?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Tell me where in the New Testament any one is sent to an already established church?

Jengie
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes the important thing is the call that comes from the Congregation. No Anglican in England gets that!
Might I respectfully suggest looking through Purgatory/Oblivion for the thread on Ordained Local Ministers?
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tell me where in the New Testament any one is sent to an already established church?

Jengie
1 Corinthians 4:17? Obviously being the NT it hadn't been established all that long, but there was a church community at Corinth and Paul sends them Timothy to teach them.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tell me where in the New Testament any one is sent to an already established church?
Paul's letter to Titus. Titus is being sent to Crete from outside, with instructions to appoint elders.

Pretty much every way of choosing ministers that has ever been invented by Christians seems to be there already in the New Testament.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't think being assigned to a congregation would count as being called, as far as Baptists are concerned. After all, ministers in training are usually assigned to a congregation. This is set up by a tutor from college or a Regional Minister, and is with the approval of the congregation concerned, but it isn't seen as equivalent to the final call which tests and confirms the process of ministerial recognition.
For Baptist Minister's in Training, the college introduces you to the congregation and then you go through exactly the same process - preach with a view, voted on by church meeting and then called - or not. It's more like the call to be a trainee in that place being confirmed than the whole ministry thing.

Some people then get called to that congregation as MInister once they've finished their training - but still go through due process - whilst others have to find another post.

I think the key difference between Baptists and other churches is that the role of the congregation in confirming the call to Ministry. Without that, there is no Ordination service at the end of the college. (And some people had all in one Induction and Ordination services, whilst others had separate ones).


Tubbs
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Tubbs

Hatless is referring to Anglicans not Baptist trainees.

Jengie
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tubbs

Hatless is referring to Anglicans not Baptist trainees.

Jengie
Sounds more like the church based Baptist Minister training - half time in college and half time in church. (Academic spend most of their time in college, with a very small church based element).

Since when did Anglicans have Regional Ministers?!

Tubbs

[ 16. September 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I think the Anglican re-ordination of non episcopally ordained clergy is not as straight forward as appears.

It is not quite true to say that the Anglican church does not recognise such orders. Some Anglicans hold the view it's just that some churches do it differently, rather than one way only is correct.

I believe in history some ministers have been given parishes without being re ordained.
I have heard Percy's third point made on several occasions, presumably referring to foreign clerics being given benefices in Elizabethan and Jacobean England. The only concrete references I have seen were recipients of prebendaries and lectureships (which produced an income for them, and for which one need not be ordained), but I have never encountered an example of one given a cure of souls who had not been ordained either in the CoE or in the Catholic Church. There are, however, a number of examples of foreign clerics being episcopally ordained to allow them to take parishes.

I am coming to the conclusion that this is an urban legend.

In terms of the OP, I am aware of several Anglican clergy now in the United Church of Canada-- one was received at a commissioning service at a presbytery meeting, but I do not know the circumstances of the others-- I would think that SPK's description gives us an idea of the procedure. I know of at least one RC priest who was similarly received as well as an Orthodox priest (British Columbia, in the 1970s).

[ 16. September 2012, 14:02: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The Salvation Army ordains the cadet as a minister of the Gospel and simultaneously commissions as an officer of The Salvation Army with the rank of Lieutenant.

There is no laying on of hands however.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tell me where in the New Testament any one is sent to an already established church?

Jengie
1 Corinthians 4:17? Obviously being the NT it hadn't been established all that long, but there was a church community at Corinth and Paul sends them Timothy to teach them.
My reading is that Timothy is being sent with the letter to bring greater context not as a minister. There is no evidence that Paul expects Timothy to spend a long time there, rather he was going for a shorter visit say several months.

You can go through all the suggested readings and argue that they are NOT sending of ministers in the terms we would understand but rather the interplay of mission teams and older/senior ministers advising younger ones.

Jengie

[ 16. September 2012, 14:58: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

I don't think being assigned to a congregation would count as being called ...
I didn't say it counted as being "called" in the sense that you mean it. But the requirement deaconal and priestly title assures the connection between ordination and function.

Point is, the sacramental act of episcopal ordination confers everything necessary by way of power, authority and commission. Those things are not conveyed or even confirmed by a call from some congregation. It's that the priest or deacon must promptly begin to actually exercise the gifts of ordination. Those pastoral and sacramental acts of the newly ordained in a congregation are a matter of completion of the ordination act. However, the act of ordination itself is reserved entirely to the bishop through the authority and power of his office.

It's a different theology, different polity and a different way of thinking.
*
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
My reading is that Timothy is being sent with the letter to bring greater context not as a minister. There is no evidence that Paul expects Timothy to spend a long time there, rather he was going for a shorter visit say several months.

You can go through all the suggested readings and argue that they are NOT sending of ministers in the terms we would understand but rather the interplay of mission teams and older/senior ministers advising younger ones.
That may be so, but you still haven't answered my original question of where this notion of the call of the congregation comes from in scripture or tradition.

If we persist with my Corinthian example for the moment, I would point out that it's Timothy that Paul sent (or "is sending" depending how you translate it) to remind them of the way of Christ. If he meant "this letter", surely he'd have said that? I think that we're clearly seeing Timothy being sent as a teacher to the church at Corinth. How long for is an open question though, I'd say. We might speculate though as to what kind of person they would have called if it were up to the church at Corinth who was going to come and teach them...

[ 16. September 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
That may be so, but you still haven't answered my original question of where this notion of the call of the congregation comes from in scripture or tradition.
The problem is that the NT Church was still in the process of getting itself set up and organised. I could therefore also ask where the NT gives any evidence for any "ontological" sense of ordination, rather than simple "commissioning" or "setting apart for ministry".

Many Baptists struggle with the word "ordination".
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I have no particular problem with calling as a way of doing things, although I think there is value in being sent. I do have a problem with the notion that someone who hasn't been called by a congregation isn't properly ordained and I submit that it cannot be justified from scripture or tradition.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I have no particular problem with calling as a way of doing things, although I think there is value in being sent. I do have a problem with the notion that someone who hasn't been called by a congregation isn't properly ordained and I submit that it cannot be justified from scripture or tradition.
Depends on whose tradition you're looking at ... The congregation having the final say and confirming the call to Ministry is part of our tradition and understanding of the role of the congregation in church government. In other churches, not so much.

There is an element of being sent if you stretch a point ... You can ask to be put forward for a vacancy and the Nomination Committee - whose proper name escapes me - will also commend your name to churches. The Committee is more like a dating agency - introducing congregations and potential Ministers together. It's then up to the congregation if they want to take it further. They're only allowed to go through the process with one person at a time. And if a call isn't issued, they have to start again with someone else. You can't usually call someone back for a second go either.

Tubbs
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wish we Anglicans extended the same courtesy to Methodist-ordained ministers.
Yes, I think this hinges on different notions of ordination, sacraments, and Apostolic Succession, but that particular array of issues may be a Dead Horse at this point.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
Here's someone who seems to have the best of both worlds ...

Pace Jengie J there are URC clerics who don't have a pastoral charge. Perhaps it is felt to be a good idea for all to have some experience of a 'parish' before moving on to fill other roles? Even if this is so, I can't see how it would affect the fundamental concept of orders.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Depends on whose tradition you're looking at ... The congregation having the final say and confirming the call to Ministry is part of our tradition and understanding of the role of the congregation in church government. In other churches, not so much.
I have no argument with any of that.

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Yes, I think this hinges on different notions of ordination, sacraments, and Apostolic Succession, but that particular array of issues may be a Dead Horse at this point.
And that's just among the Anglicans...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Here's someone who seems to have the best of both worlds ...

Pace Jengie J there are URC clerics who don't have a pastoral charge. Perhaps it is felt to be a good idea for all to have some experience of a 'parish' before moving on to fill other roles? Even if this is so, I can't see how it would affect the fundamental concept of orders.
Two exceptions I can think of both because of exercising ministry in special circumstances where a synod would ordain:
1)Missionaries
2)Chaplains

If you go straight into teaching role, you do not get ordained.

Jengie
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In terms of the OP, I am aware of several Anglican clergy now in the United Church of Canada-- one was received at a commissioning service at a presbytery meeting, but I do not know the circumstances of the others-- I would think that SPK's description gives us an idea of the procedure. I know of at least one RC priest who was similarly received as well as an Orthodox priest (British Columbia, in the 1970s).
Because I can't let nits pass me by, that would be Conference (a synod, a flock of Presbyteries), not Presbytery. In the UCCan only Conference can ordain Ministers of Word & Sacrament, Commission Diaconal Ministers and Receive clergy into the Order of Ministry. Presbytery can only designate Lay Worship Leaders and other minor forms of para-clergy (rant: I'm not entirely sure why we need all the para-clergy designations when Elders do that just fine and there is no rule against laity preaching in the United Church anyway, though laity cannot preside at sacraments).

I'm also not entire sure about Jengie's description. The UCCan split the difference between Methodist and Presbyterian systems in 1925 with regards to clergy. Ministers are Ordained by Conference (13 regional synods) and must be Settled into a specific Pastoral Charge before ordination can occur. The actual ceremony and laying on of hands by another Minister of Word & Sacrament happens at the Annual General Meeting of Conferences. Settlement used to be by assignment only, but assignment is optional now due to all the second-career clergy with commitments. But you still have to have a Pastoral Charge, but you can now find one yourself.

However congregations have no role in the Ordination ceremony in the UCCan and it happens at the AGM of Conferences, which are often at universities or church summer camps.

Ministers are free to seek their own Calls within their one Conference but moving to another Conference requires the approval of the Transfer & Settlement Committee of the sending and receiving Conferences.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tell me where in the New Testament any one is sent to an already established church?
Paul's letter to Titus. Titus is being sent to Crete from outside, with instructions to appoint elders.

Pretty much every way of choosing ministers that has ever been invented by Christians seems to be there already in the New Testament.
I am glad the election of the Supreme Pastor to be the leader of the church of Rome gets such a biblical precedent.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by JJ:

quote:

The doctrine of ordination is different.....
I think thats where the issue lies; what in one is called ordination is not quite what is understood as ordination in another, but closer resembles commissioning. I know some Reformed churches do 'ordain' but I was thinking more in terms of Presbyterians and Baptists (sorry I wasn't very clear). To be honest I've never quite got my head around the Presbyterian polity thing. The elected members of the session (who can be called presbyters and elders) help run the church. The minister is also a teaching elder and presbyter, but has the laying on of hands specific to his/her task of teaching in the church. I know there are moves to a better understanding of the place of the Lord's Supper and I know that generally speaking the teaching elder is the only one considered suitable to preside over the Lord's Supper. All that I understand, but the other elders in the session are commissioned, whereas the teaching elder is 'ordained'. So, is that due to the reverence to communion or the role of teaching, or both, or something else?
The thread has become a little confusing, so I thought I would return to this and try to answer from a Presbyterian angle. Jengie, wonderful though her knowledge of church history and polity is, is describing a Congregationalist approach, and not a Presbyterian one.

First of all, Presbyterians ordain, period. They call it ordination, and not commissioning, and it would be highly insulting if the Church of Ireland has indeed looked at Presbyterian ordination and decided that it is commissioning by another name. Ordination of a minister is done by the laying on of hands by the members of Presbytery, who thus perform in a collegiate manner a similar function to a Bishop in Episcopalian traditions. The word ordain as it pertains to us does not require scare quotes.

Where confusion seems to lie is the idea of the ordination of elders. Note that: all elders are ordained, not commissioned. We have perhaps a wider concept of ordination than an Episcopal church might have, for we ordain people to particular callings. For elders, that calling does not include the administration of the sacraments. But it is ordination nonetheless. Likewise, we in the Church of Scotland ordain deacons, in their case to service, but once again, they cannot administer the Sacraments. If an elder or a deacon becomes a minister, they must be ordained to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. This is not a re-ordination. It is an ordination to a new calling.

It might help to think about ministry in the church as working on different levels. Just as by the word 'church', we can mean the local congregation and/or the wider, even universal church, so our Presbyterian concept of the Minister incorporates both of these in one person. So on one level, the minister is 'just' an elder like any other. This means that, like all elders, they are called and ordained to the governance and pastoral care of a particular local church (and also to take their part in wider church governance via Presbyteries). Unlike other elders, however, the minister has been given a special commission by the church: to gain a theological education and so to impart their knowledge of Bible and doctrine to the congregation. In that sense they are the Teaching Elder.

However, beyond the administration and teaching of a local church, the minister has a sacramental and church catholic role. Presbyterian ministers are ordained to Word and Sacrament. Preaching itself has an almost sacramental quality in Reformed theology, going far beyond mere 'teaching'; while Baptism and Holy Communion are given their full sacramental value in Presbyterianism, whose dominant sacramental doctrine is that of spiritual presence.

Lastly, ordination is indelible. Given our sacramentology, we are leery of concepts of ontological change; nevertheless, a minister is ordained for life, though they may not fulfil that role without the permission of a presbytery.

Considering all of that, fletcher, I wonder if you could explain again why the Church of Ireland is happy to recognise the ordination of Methodists, but not of Presbyterians?
 
Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :
 
Slightly to one side of the subject but here goes : How does Anglicanism deal with English speaking Old Catholics in North America, Europe and Australisia who have undergone ordination from Bishops in Apostolic Succession although not from Anglicans? Can such people ever be recognised by Anglicans as 'valid' or is 'validity' itself a parlour game best played by Rome.


I compile a blog on funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/ and sometimes deal with theological matters
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tell me where in the New Testament any one is sent to an already established church?

Jengie
Already-established churches aren't terribly common in the New Testament, for obvious historical reasons.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Slightly to one side of the subject but here goes : How does Anglicanism deal with English speaking Old Catholics in North America, Europe and Australisia who have undergone ordination from Bishops in Apostolic Succession although not from Anglicans? Can such people ever be recognised by Anglicans as 'valid' or is 'validity' itself a parlour game best played by Rome.
I don't know about North America or the Antipodes, but European Old Catholics have AFAIK been in full communion with the C of E for a long time, and OC bishops have taken part in C of E ordinations and consecrations. Isn't that why +Graham Leonard was given only conditional ordination by Rome because of the 'Dutch touch'?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Crossposted with Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Slightly to one side of the subject but here goes : How does Anglicanism deal with English speaking Old Catholics in North America, Europe and Australisia who have undergone ordination from Bishops in Apostolic Succession although not from Anglicans? Can such people ever be recognised by Anglicans as 'valid' or is 'validity' itself a parlour game best played by Rome.
According to our canon law the CofE is in full communion with (a) the other provinces of the Anglican Communion and also:

quote:

b) The Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht:

(c) Philippine Independent Church

(d) Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar

(e) Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches which have approved the Porvoo Declaration. To date, these are:
So if your English speaking Old Catholics are members of that happy band of brothers, then the Church of England officially likes you.

I read a news article about some churches in Italy which don't have their own bishop changing bishop from Swiss Old Catholics to the Church of England

[ 17. September 2012, 22:07: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Slightly to one side of the subject but here goes : How does Anglicanism deal with English speaking Old Catholics in North America, Europe and Australisia who have undergone ordination from Bishops in Apostolic Succession although not from Anglicans? Can such people ever be recognised by Anglicans as 'valid' or is 'validity' itself a parlour game best played by Rome.
I don't know about North America or the Antipodes, but European Old Catholics have AFAIK been in full communion with the C of E for a long time, and OC bishops have taken part in C of E ordinations and consecrations. Isn't that why +Graham Leonard was given only conditional ordination by Rome because of the 'Dutch touch'?
The Episcopal Church USA is in formal inter-communion with the Old Catholic churches of the Utrecht Union. Last summer at the Episcopal Church Gerneral Convention, Archbishop Joris Vekammen of Utrecht, was principal celebrant at one of the daily convention sung Eucharists.

The Episcopal Church has no inter-communion relationships with any of the many north american Old Catholic, or so-called continuing Anglican churches ... or their progeny.

Also, The Episcopal Church does have very active inter-communion agreements with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and with the north and south synods of the Moravian Church of America.

The word inter-communion used here also refers to mutual recognition of Holy Orders, and a covenanted participation by at least one bishop of each these churches when bishops of the other churches are consecrated. Thus, when every new Episcopal Bishop receives his/her ordination, at least one ELCA and on Moravian bishop must be present for the liturgy and must participate in the laying on of hands. That's also true vice versa. These acts are bringing about a mutual, documented, succession and recognition of Holy Orders.

ELCA and Moravian pastors who are received for ministry in The Episcopal Church may be, but are now no longer required, to be re-ordained by Episcopal bishops.
*
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
Slightly to one side of the subject but here goes : How does Anglicanism deal with English speaking Old Catholics in North America, Europe and Australisia who have undergone ordination from Bishops in Apostolic Succession although not from Anglicans? Can such people ever be recognised by Anglicans as 'valid' or is 'validity' itself a parlour game best played by Rome.


I compile a blog on funerals and burials at http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/ and sometimes deal with theological matters
In Canada, the only people I can think of are from the Polish National Catholic Church which has in recent years fallen in and out of communion with the Anglican Church of Canada-- I am actually not certain what the situation is right now. Their orders are recognized and in the past there were a few transfers.

I have heard that there were cases of individuals who obtained orders from episcopi vagantes and tried to obtain recognition/incardination from diocesan bishops. I believe that the practice has been to refuse them. A now-deceased cleric told me that Robert McGuire, late of Montreal, (re)ordained one in the mid-1960s, but that needs to be confirmed.

The ACoC does not recognize the orders of clergy in the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, whose orders are derived from Canadian Anglican bishops who helped start that body, using the BCP ordinal. I am not sure if the House of Bishops bothered with a theological rationale when it decided this in 1992, but I fear that their intent might have been punitive. I gather that one ACCoC priest was (re)ordained out west around the turn of the century, but do not know if he was done conditionally or de novo.

In terms of the OP's theme, the new Dean of Quebec, a cleric from one of the Baltic Lutheran churches which was not part of the Porvoo agreement, was ordained de novo, while the identical (as far as I can see) orders of a Swedish cleric were recognized and he was put into a Vancouver parish. AFAIK the ACoC does not recognize UCC orders and clergy crossing to Anglicanism are ordained de novo, but I keep hearing of concelebrations done quietly.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
[QUOTE]
In Canada, the only people I can think of are from the Polish National Catholic Church which has in recent years fallen in and out of communion with the Anglican Church of Canada-- I am actually not certain what the situation is right now. Their orders are recognized and in the past there were a few transfers.
The same thing is true of The Episcopal Church and the Polish National Catholic Church (PNC), which is why I didn't mention them and the unhappy ending of their inter-communion with Anglicans/Episcopalians.

The PNC had a long standing inter-communion relationship with other Anglican national churches, as well as with the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Union. But beginning in the 1970s, the PNC formally terminated those inter-communion relationships with any other church which began to ordain women priests.

So the PNC now lives alone and apart from any national church that ordains women priests. That fact seems to have redirected their ecumenical activities towards more substantive conversations and meetings with official Roman Catholic representation.

This current state of affairs with the PNC and the Roman Catholic Church is also a great change from from the longstanding and active hostility that was in place between the two churches, especially of course with bitter battles of Poles against Poles.
*
 
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Agreed. I think the point being made is that ordination (and I have to admit that "commissioning" is a word that does often rear its head in Baptist circles) cannot be seen independently of the call to a congregation: there cannot be a "batch" of ordinations done together at some central point, they usually take place within the condext of an induction service.
You forgot to ad YMMV, or something like it, surely?

In Methodist polity, ordination is utterly separate from the call of the congregation - in fact, we don't have single congregations issuing calls, at all, and all our ordinations are done centrally - or, as you so quaintly put it, in one batch.

Our ministers are ordained by the whole people called Methodist, nationally, as represented by the Conference and its President, and are sent/stationed to Circuits, not individual congregations, by the Conference.

There is an element of "invitation" from the Circuits, of course, but the authority to place ministers in Circuits belongs exclusively to the Conference (or its delegated authority, the Warden of the Order, in the case of Diaconal ministers), and our ministers may be re-stationed at any time by the Conference: thus a friend of mine who went to the Conference of 1994 as a representative of the Southampton District, and by the time he went home was stationed in Cornwall!
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Agreed. I think the point being made is that ordination (and I have to admit that "commissioning" is a word that does often rear its head in Baptist circles) cannot be seen independently of the call to a congregation: there cannot be a "batch" of ordinations done together at some central point, they usually take place within the condext of an induction service.
You forgot to ad YMMV, or something like it, surely?

In Methodist polity, ordination is utterly separate from the call of the congregation - in fact, we don't have single congregations issuing calls, at all, and all our ordinations are done centrally - or, as you so quaintly put it, in one batch.

Our ministers are ordained by the whole people called Methodist, nationally, as represented by the Conference and its President, and are sent/stationed to Circuits, not individual congregations, by the Conference.

There is an element of "invitation" from the Circuits, of course, but the authority to place ministers in Circuits belongs exclusively to the Conference (or its delegated authority, the Warden of the Order, in the case of Diaconal ministers), and our ministers may be re-stationed at any time by the Conference: thus a friend of mine who went to the Conference of 1994 as a representative of the Southampton District, and by the time he went home was stationed in Cornwall!
Maybe better if you add in the word Baptists – where one (call to ministry) would be seen as being confirmed by the other (called by a congregation to be their minister). You can’t have one without the other - some Ministers have a combined Ordination / Commissioning service at the church that called them whilst others have the Ordination service at their home church shortly followed by the Commissioning service at the church that’s called them. That’s why “batch” ordinations wouldn’t be appropriate for Baptists – but are fine for other denominations. [No value judgement intended].

The Baptist accreditation process does seem to be more centralised. After someone has completed their NAN (?) period of three years, they receive their accreditation – and the right hand of fellowship - at that year’s Baptist Conference along with all the other probationary Ministers and are now fully accredited. I shall have to ask at home what difference this makes in practice.

That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.

Tubbs

[ 18. September 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I don't know if anyone knows the details of
Dave Tomlinson's career, but it might be illustrative of people who become ordained Anglicans after being a house church leader.

I've come across him a few times, I can't remember if I've read the detail about how he became an Anglican.

[ 18. September 2012, 12:40: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
They would not be treated as being ordained.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
They would not be treated as being ordained.
But would they be expected go through the whole process again or fast tracked in some way?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
IIRC I met one such at, I think, Lincoln or Cuddesdon some 20 years ago, who was on a one-year course before ordination. AIUI there would be a requirement to go through the usual two levels (deacon, then priest a year later) of ordination: at about the same time I knew a CofE curate, formerly URC presbyter of probably 15 or 20 years standing, who had to do this. That does seem a little mean to me- but wasn't the present Dean of Trinity Hall, an ex Methodist, deaconed and then priested in pretty quick succession?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That said, I don’t know whether fully accredited, ordained Baptist ministers would be treated if they wanted to switch to Anglican ministry.
They would not be treated as being ordained.
But would they be expected go through the whole process again or fast tracked in some way?

Tubbs
In Canada, they would normally have to go through ACPO (is it still called that?) with its interviews and personal and psychological testing. Generally, convert clergy agree to live as lay members in an Anglican parish to get a feeling for how the tradition works for them-- this can be a few months, or a couple of years, depending on the cleric, the bishop, and the circumstances.

Much would depend on their theological and pastoral training. If they had a standard MDiv (such as can be had from the U of Toronto theology faculty, where most non-denominationally specific courses are shared), then there would like be a series of courses on Anglican-specific theological and liturgical subjects. In exceptional circumstances, this might be done by mentorship, rather than by enrolment.

If they had been at a Baptist-specific seminary, then I imagine that a bishop and advisers would look carefully at the content of the theological and pastoral courses before deciding what would need to be supplemented. By and large, the seminaries of the more established Baptist churches provide scriptural and homilectic training which leaves most Anglicans gasping in the dust and could easily make the new priest an instant mentor to their seniors.

While some of the less-formal backgrounds might move a bishop to ask them to do a new 3-year MDiv, as a wild guess, they would require a year, perhaps two at the most, of supplementary training, rather than the regular three years. In that sense, they can be expected to be fast-tracked. There might be a case of an eminent theologian or pastor who would be fast-tracked even more quickly but I can think of no examples.

In the two cases of which I am aware, everyone has behaved carefully and soberly, supervising authorities facilitating (and sometimes generously financing) transitions.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Dave Tomlinson went through formal ordination - I guess through St Mellitus.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I think former RC clergy who transfer, while not being re-ordained, have to have a similar training and curacy post.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IIRC I met one such at, I think, Lincoln or Cuddesdon some 20 years ago, who was on a one-year course before ordination. AIUI there would be a requirement to go through the usual two levels (deacon, then priest a year later) of ordination: at about the same time I knew a CofE curate, formerly URC presbyter of probably 15 or 20 years standing, who had to do this. That does seem a little mean to me- but wasn't the present Dean of Trinity Hall, an ex Methodist, deaconed and then priested in pretty quick succession?
Yes he was, without even having resigned from full connexion first. It was a fair old two fingers up to the Conference from our friends in the Church of England.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Best thing I suppose would have been to have him consecrated as a Bishop in the Church of South India.That would have encompassed both identities.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada signed a Basis of Union in 1974, the new church was to be called the Church of Christ in Canada. The United Church did agree to have bishops, I don't know what else was agreed to, I've never seen the document and it doesn't circulate on the Internet.

I don't know what that document said about United Church orders. Women's Ordination was also an issue because the United Church did ordain women at that time and had since the 1930's, we had more than a few on the active role.

IIRC John Holding said the question wasn't discussed much, but it was not a theoretical question, it was substantial.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada signed a Basis of Union in 1974, the new church was to be called the Church of Christ in Canada. The United Church did agree to have bishops, I don't know what else was agreed to, I've never seen the document and it doesn't circulate on the Internet.

I don't know what that document said about United Church orders. Women's Ordination was also an issue because the United Church did ordain women at that time and had since the 1930's, we had more than a few on the active role.

IIRC John Holding said the question wasn't discussed much, but it was not a theoretical question, it was substantial.
I write from a pensioner's failing memory as I long ago jettisoned the document, as it was a very long legalistic piece, with pages upon pages on the constitution and size of Districts (the new word for diocese), and intricate committee structures. One of the major stumbling blocks for the new body was that the Act of Union would have included a ceremony which was intentionally ambivalent and could be read as a re-ordination of all entering clergy, or as a commissioning of them into the new church. It was intended to be ambiguous but it was just too obviously so, and caused much bickering and accusations (justifiably, I think) of intellectual dishonesty-- I think that it would have been far better to use the CSI approach. IIRC, the dissent to the document, while not a majority, was significant enough that it was one of several factors which led the House of Bishops to let the process wither rather than to face a split.

O. And women UCC clergy would have become presbyters in the new body.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Thanks to the internet, my suggested solution would be mass mutual "re-ordination" for everybody for the orders they don't have at the hands of Church of South India or North India, preferably both. "Complete the necklace, collect them all!" but it would get the job done.

The United Church and the Anglican Church have long had a number of joint parishes/pastoral charges, I don't know if United Church ministers are re-ordained when called there. Under the national policy for such ventures, something has to recognized as equivalent to the Church Council or Session and there has to be some group that are Elders. Bishops are the Anglican's "can't be without it" thing, Elders are the equivalent for the United Church.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Thanks to the internet, my suggested solution would be mass mutual "re-ordination" for everybody for the orders they don't have at the hands of Church of South India or North India, preferably both. "Complete the necklace, collect them all!" but it would get the job done.

Yes, that's what I've always thought, too.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0