Presbyter Ordination

[steido01]

It is so refreshing to discuss theology with someone who is willing to not just throw around cliches!

Here are the links:
…
What do you think?

What do I think? I think I’ll never tire of reading about the Phoenix. I’ve always enjoyed that bit of Clement.

Perhaps the Lutheran paradigm in which I was raised has affected me (I tried to read these with an unbiased mind, really I did!), but I did not read anything that contradicts what I’ve always been taught; that it was the Apostolic teaching of the church that was required to maintain proper succession, not so much that man-made rites were strictly and perfectly observed (Per Crucem explained this well). Even Tertullian’s often-quoted words in Chapter 32 seem, to me, to be clearly in response to the novel Gnostic inventions from outside the church, and not so much meant as an attack on Presbyter ordination within it. If anything, I find these writings to support the Lutheran view (particularly Tertullian’s fiery words against the abuse of Scriptures in Chapter 37!) - at least, as I read them. Though, as my signature says, I am certainly no theologian. I could share quotes from the links you posted that explain the Lutheran view, but I’m not sure that would be much better than proof-texting, and I’d rather not claim knowledge where I have little.

Seem to me that the divergence between Wittenberg and Rome is in the understanding of ‘church.’ Is it the whole body of baptized believers, or is it -in practice- dependent on the man-made buildings and rites customary to a certain European city?

 

[steido01]

Good points; however, is it any different today? In other words, if Tertullian and Irenaeus could validly say back then that the only way to have the correct interpretation of Scripture was by appealing to the Apostolic Sees, why do we think that merely the written words of the Bible are sufficient today?

But I’m not sure they appealed to the Bishops because they were the Bishops; I think it’s clear that they appealed to the Apostolic teachings that, in their time, those Bishops had steadfastly upheld.

Without any antagonism, it seems to me that the Protestant Churches seem to have a lot of alleged doctrine that was “hidden” from the Church throughout most of history, and the Catholic Apostolic Sees that still remain contradict this theology. If Irenaeus could correctly appeal to the Church for the only true interpretation of Scripture, why is it any different today?

Firstly, I can’t answer your question as you’ve phrased it, and it’s not because I want to be evasive. It’s because you’ve lumped all non-Roman Catholic Western Christians into the same imaginary umbrella category. I can no more answer for a Pentecostal’s beliefs than you can. Your original question was about Lutherans. So I will answer as a Lutheran would. While most Roman Catholics will disagree, we Lutherans believe that we introduced nothing new; rather the Lutheran Reformation removed the new doctrines that had obscured the Gospel within the church.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Lutherans see the value of episcopacy and, absent Luther’s trouble getting bishops to ordain Lutheran pastors, would likely have never conducted presbyter ordinations. But the historic exceptions allowing priests to ordain other priests was the only solution, at least in German/ Holy Roman Empire.

Those circumstances faced by German Lutherans 500 years don’t exist any longer and for the overwhelming number of Lutherans worldwide, episcopacy/ apostolic succession is now the norm.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

What do I think? I think I’ll never tire of reading about the Phoenix. I’ve always enjoyed that bit of Clement.

Perhaps the Lutheran paradigm in which I was raised has affected me (I tried to read these with an unbiased mind, really I did!), but I did not read anything that contradicts what I’ve always been taught; that it was the Apostolic teaching of the church that was required to maintain proper succession, not so much that man-made rites were strictly and perfectly observed (Per Crucem explained this well). Even Tertullian’s often-quoted words in Chapter 32 seem, to me, to be clearly in response to the novel Gnostic inventions from outside the church, and not so much meant as an attack on Presbyter ordination within it. If anything, I find these writings to support the Lutheran view (particularly Tertullian’s fiery words against the abuse of Scriptures in Chapter 37!) - at least, as I read them. Though, as my signature says, I am certainly no theologian. I could share quotes from the links you posted that explain the Lutheran view, but I’m not sure that would be much better than proof-texting, and I’d rather not claim knowledge where I have little.

Seem to me that the divergence between Wittenberg and Rome is in the understanding of ‘church.’ Is it the whole body of baptized believers, or is it -in practice- dependent on the man-made buildings and rites customary to a certain European city?

Yes, I too enjoy the chapter on the Phoenix! It makes a good case in my mind for the Christian reclaiming of the ancient myths: we are called to take dominion, and even in realm of sanctifying the old legends. Like Tolkien and Lewis did.

I can definitely agree with you about the Apostolic teaching: that is what those particular ECF were speaking of. Nevertheless, I don’t see that as problematic for my position. If the true Apostolic Teaching was only to be found in the Apostolic Churches back then, why is it any different now? If the Church as a whole was not infallible, Ireaenus’ appeal to the Church for absolute truth would be ludicrous.

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world… Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.”

If the Church (i.e. the Apostolic Churches) was the depository of the Truth back then, why is it any different now?

As I said before, I am still trying to examine all sides, so thank you for your discussion!

 

[Per_Crucem]

Good points; however, is it any different today? In other words, if Tertullian and Irenaeus could validly say back then that the only way to have the correct interpretation of Scripture was by appealing to the Apostolic Sees, why do we think that merely the written words of the Bible are sufficient today?

Sufficiency, I think, is a bit of a red herring in discussions like this, though. The issue from our perspective is not whether Scripture, apart from the church, is sufficient. It’s not, nor did the Lutheran reformers believe so. Rather, it is whether Scripture norms what the church teaches via its authority as God-breathed revelation or whether the hierarchy of the Church stands alongside the Scriptures as an equal authoritative norm.

Without any antagonism, it seems to me that the Protestant Churches seem to have a lot of alleged doctrine that was “hidden” from the Church throughout most of history, and the Catholic Apostolic Sees that still remain contradict this theology.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

The tradition that originates from the apostles and is “preserved succession of presbyters in the Churches” is not some separate set of teaching distinct from scripture, but the living witness of what the scriptures teach in the local churches. Irenaeus point the Gnostics to the scriptures and they reject it. He then points to the visible doctrine of the church (which is identical to scripture) and they reject it. Here we see that for Irenaeus, Scripture and tradition are one and the same in that which they teach (as he expounds similarly in other parts of Against Heresies). The entire Gnostic system falls apart without their reliance on extra biblical dogma.

You’ve made some excellent points in your post, and I agree with much of what you said. For instance, I would agree that “Sacred Tradition” (at least for the most part) is really the correct interpretation of Scripture itself, not so much “extra-biblical” doctrines. Tertullian spoke of “the rule of faith” as the guide to interpreting Scripture, and I agree with him.

My main point in this discussion is not to try to argue for doctrines which are not contained in Scripture, but rather to maintain that we must find the Right Interpretation only in the Life of the Church.

We all, whether we like it or not, look at the Bible through a set of glasses, through our own presuppositions. They usually come from our culture, our upbringing, our own studies, and our personality, and having them is unavoidable. This is neither a good nor a bad thing: this just is a fact.

Now, since the NT is not a “systematic theology handbook” but rather a collection of epistles and histories written to certain groups for certain reasons at certain times, many things are not as clear to us (living 2000 years later) as we would like. Therefore, even though the Bible contains all the essential doctrines, there is a huge chance that our set of glasses will have become foggy and cracked over the centuries, making it hard for us to see the Bible in the way that it was originally written. That is why, in my opinion, we need to be very careful to fix our glasses so that we can read the Scriptures the way God intended.

Many of the early heretics used Scripture quite a bit also, making their heresies very difficult to fight. That is why the Early Fathers stressed so much the importance of having the right set of presuppositions when men looked at the Bible: for without these, one could “prove” almost anything. There were huge heretical groups in the early Church that twisted Scripture without end, because many things in the Bible are difficult to comprehend.

As Peter said, of Paul’s writings, “…his epistles…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

And Paul himself, showing the necessity of having both the true written Word and the correct interpretations, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

Today, too many of our glasses are faulty—too many of our presuppositions are in error. Heresy after heresy arises and claims support from the Bible (“believers’ baptism”, “unitarianism”, “mere symbolic eucharist”, etc) . We say that their “proofs” are pish-posh, and they are, but why should they be wrong and we be right? If the Church as a whole is not in some sense infallible, how can we have the correct interpretation of the Bible? No, in my opinion, it is quite obvious that the right presuppositions are absolutely necessary, and it seems to me that the ECF argued that these “glasses” were only to be found in the Apostolic Churches.

After all, didn’t Christ promise that, “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

Thank you for these discussions! I am just trying to find the truth in these issues. I appreciate your dialogue.

 

[commenter]

The Gnostic appeal to the Scriptures was very minimal. … The entire Gnostic system falls apart without their reliance on extra biblical dogma.

The Gnostics had their own canon, their own books that they considered “scripture”. From their point of view, the early (Catholic) church relied mostly on “tradition” which is what they considered some of the books the Magisterium described as “Scripture”. From the Gnostic point of view, they were the scriptural ones, and we the tradition-dependent ones. They would say the Catholics relied on extrabiblical dogma, since we relied on books outside their canon.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You’ve made some excellent points in your post, and I agree with much of what you said. For instance, I would agree that “Sacred Tradition” (at least for the most part) is really the correct interpretation of Scripture itself, not so much “extra-biblical” doctrines. Tertullian spoke of “the rule of faith” as the guide to interpreting Scripture, and I agree with him.

I agree with this, too. The problem is, Rome (and the East, for that matter), does not. At least not entirely. They may refer to tradition as a regula fidei in some senses, but they do also mean doctrine not contained in Scripture. The partim-partim view is Tridentine dogma.

My main point in this discussion is not to try to argue for doctrines which are not contained in Scripture, but rather to maintain that we must find the Right Interpretation only in the Life of the Church.

 

[Mystical_Poet]

No disagreement there. We do not expect secular governments to interpret Scripture (or individuals for that matter)…

Non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because the church correctly interprets Scripture, it therefore means the interpretation must be infallible. One can have an inerrant interpretation without it being an infallible interpretation. Saying it is infallible only moves the argument back one step. In fact, it complicates it. For you not only have to prove that the interpretation is correct, you now have to prove that it is also infallible…

You have raised many excellent points in your most recent post, and I believe I am beginning to understand Lutheran Theology better. Let me just ask you a few questions to better understand what you are saying:

1, since you do not believe the Church is infallible, and since you do not believe in sacramental apostolic succession, how is the “Church” the correct interpreter of Scripture? Do you hold to the Vincent of Lerin’s “Everywhere, always, and by all” principle? What exactly is the “Church” in this context?

2, How can the Church or an interpretation be inerrant but yet not infallible? What exactly do you mean?

3, Finally, how do you know for certain that your interpretation of Scripture is correct? I just wonder: if you believe that the Church can err, how do you know that you are correct in your interpretations?

Thanks!

 

[Mystical_Poet]

One more thing: it seems to me that what is more indistinct in Irenaeus is much clearer in both Clement and Tertullian: i.e., that the Apostolic Succession is more than just the passing on of true doctrine. Clement talks about the Succession of Presbyters and Bishops as if it was something sacramental, and Tertullian says the two marks of the true Churches are 1, the Succession of Bishops and 2, true Apostolic Doctrine. In his mind, both are necessary.

What do you say? It seems pretty clear in my mind.

Thanks!

 

[Mystical_Poet]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV chapter 26 section 5 and chapter 33 section 8, "Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets…
“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, 2 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 13 which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].”

 

[Per_Crucem]

You have raised many excellent points in your most recent post, and I believe I am beginning to understand Lutheran Theology better. Let me just ask you a few questions to better understand what you are saying:

1, since you do not believe the Church is infallible, and since you do not believe in sacramental apostolic succession, how is the “Church” the correct interpreter of Scripture? Do you hold to the Vincent of Lerin’s “Everywhere, always, and by all” principle? What exactly is the “Church” in this context?

I think St. Vincent’s dictum is a good one, for the most part. At least, it’s accurate as to the bulk of Christian teaching. The church is the correct interpreter of Scripture because Scripture is given to the church and no one else.

2, How can the Church or an interpretation be inerrant but yet not infallible? What exactly do you mean?

It depends on what you mean by “for certain.” I do not hold to a Cartesian worldview which states I must be infallibly certain of something before I believe it to be true. In the case of an infallible interpreter, it doesn’t solve the problem. While I could say that my view of Scripture is certain because the interpreter is infallible, I would then have to be certain that the interpreter is, in fact, infallible. How do I do that?

 

[commenter]

I do not hold to a Cartesian worldview which states I must be infallibly certain of something before I believe it to be true. In the case of an infallible interpreter, it doesn’t solve the problem. While I could say that my view of Scripture is certain because the interpreter is infallible, I would then have to be certain that the interpreter is, in fact, infallible. How do I do that?

While you realize that your own “view of Scripture” may not be certain, I think you are taking for granted that Scripture itself is certain.How do you know that?

My view is that Scripture is certain because of God; WE know Scripture itself is certain because of the Magisterium. I think it is a mistake to start off in step 2, with the certainty (and canon) of Scripture already assured, then look at the Magisterium supposedly beginning its role from scratch - as one of the uncertain interpreters of it.

 

[Scythian]

I’m not sure Apostolic Succession is, under all circumstances, even required within the Roman Communion (I am open to correction if I have misunderstood). There have been -albeit very, very rare- exceptions throughout history where Rome has recognized an ordination as valid (I can’t remember the name of the group of monks!!). I suppose the Lutheran reasons for accepting Presbyter ordinations would be nearly identical to the Roman Catholic reason for accepting Presbyter ordinations (however rarely they may occur in that communion).

ordination by a bishop (validly ordained himself) is an absolute requirement in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, ordination by anyone else whether presbyters or laymen would be invalid no matter what. Once the bishops (successors of the apostles) disappear, there can be no new priests - that’s what happened in Japan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan, the Russian Orthodox Old Believers, and later on among Catholics in Stalinist Russia.

Im familiar with the story of those monks and the people involved either knew something that we don’t (for example that the abbot was actually ordained bishop but didnt function as one - this happens sometimes) or all the parties involved were simply wrong.

 

[JonNC]

ordination by a bishop (validly ordained himself) is an absolute requirement in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, ordination by anyone else whether presbyters or laymen would be invalid no matter what. Once the bishops (successors of the apostles) disappear, there can be no new priests - that’s what happened in Japan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakure_Kirishitan, the Russian Orthodox Old Believers, and later on among Catholics in Stalinist Russia.

Im familiar with the story of those monks and the people involved either knew something that we don’t (for example that the abbot was actually ordained bishop but didnt function as one - this happens sometimes) or all the parties involved were simply wrong.

Although the Lutheran symbols affirm the desire to retain the apostolic succession and hist. episcopate (Ap XIV 1, 5) only a few canonically consecrated bps. accepted the Reformation and, except in Sweden, political and other considerations prevented them from transmitting the apostolic succession to the Lutheran community. Lacking bishops to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Lutherans appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally bishops and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (**a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); **that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bps. refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72). The succession of the ministry in the Lutheran Church may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.

bolding is mine

I haven’t seen any refutation of this presentation of the situation surrounding the Cistercian abbots, and the approval of their presbyter ordinations by three popes of that era, though they may be one. If not, then presbyter ordination, as presented, is valid without bishops laying on of hands.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&t2=p

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Jon

When do you think the Missouri Synod will re-instate episcopacy? Wasn’t Bishop Martin Stephan from Germany, the first LCMS bishop?

 

[JonNC]

Jon

When do you think the Missouri Synod will re-instate episcopacy? Wasn’t Bishop Martin Stephan from Germany, the first LCMS bishop?

I suspect it will have to do with what synods or communions we share altar and pulpit fellowship with. If you recall, the ELCA and its predecessor bodies used presbyter ordination until the episcopacy became a requirement for “Call to Common Mission” with The Episcopal Church. I suspect that the return of episcopacy within the LCMS will result by similar means - unity with a communion that has it, and can and will share it.
Bishop Stephans was certainly one of the leaders, if not* the *leader of the Saxon Emigration. There is controversy surrounding his deposing.

Jon

 

[Scythian]

bolding is mine

I haven’t seen any refutation of this presentation of the situation surrounding the Cistercian abbots, and the approval of their presbyter ordinations by three popes of that era, though they may be one. If not, then presbyter ordination, as presented, is valid without bishops laying on of hands.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&t2=p

Jon

I really doubt it ever happened as presented - the people of that time were not ignorant and knew the Church had always required a bishop to ordain presbyters. And even if they were ignorant the letters prbably came from one of the pope’s lieutenants in his name, since popes of this period were much more busy than today’s popes - having to deal with international politics, domestic issues of their own secular kingdom and possessions, and not to mention court politics and womanizing. I’ve done some google searching and it seems this is all hearsay, no direct evidence I could find, maybe you can do better.

And if it did exist I bet if you go to the Vatican archives and see the name of the abbots and were able to magically find all of his records one would discover they were actually ordained a bishop at some time in the past - if real the situation was probably over if the abbot-bishop could do the ordination instead of the bishop of the diocese who probably was in a dispute with them (probably over money given the era). It’s very possible a presbyter abbot ordained them to minor orders (reader, sub-deacon etc) and was mistaken by whatever author or scholar who read the source as implying a presbyteriate ordination.

Indeed in Catholic and Orthodox theology the sole reason the presbyters/priests exist is to be an extension of the bishop since he can’t be everywhere at once. (Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox priests actually celebrate the sacrament on a cloth called an antimins that is given to him by the bishop and has the bishop’s name on it as a reminder to the presbyter who he serves and represents. Actually in apostolic times bishops outnumbered presbyters, presbyters bring limited to the city and numerous bishops roaming the desert and country side. Coptic Orthodox actually have some nomenclature that is a remnant of those times.)

Anyways whatever really happened in an obscure corner 14th century Western Europe, anyone before that time and anyone after if “ordained” by a presbyter it would be an absolute and pure innovation contrary to the practice of the Church Fathers and would have to be (re)ordained by a bishop whether it be 20th, 15th century or 2nd century.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (an infallible document) says:

1573 The essential rite of the sacrament of Holy Orders for all three degrees consists in the bishop’s imposition of hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop’s specific consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate is being ordained.

And this passage has a footnote from Pius XII’s apostolic constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis. Which would be a matter of Faith which would mean it is an infallible statement from the Catholic perspective, which would settle the issue for a Catholic assuming one wouldn’t trust the Church Fathers and the previous 19 centuries of Church practice.