Protestant Ordination - By what authority?

[jimmy]

Angainor:

So say you. I wonder if Mr. Ignatius would agree. He said some Eucharists are deemed proper Eucharists. I must assume he believed some Eucharists were **improper **(but still Eucharists). He could have said simply “Only bishops or someone entrusted by the bishop can administer the Eucharist”. He didn’t.Absolutely, that is what I am saying. I would go further and say that no person has “authority”. Authority belongs to God and his words of institution.

Do you know the passage from Acts where a couple Jews tried to exercise a demon from a person by the name of Jesus? Do you know what the demon said? He told them I know who Jesus is and I know who Paul is, but who are you? Just like the authority to exercise demons is given by Christ, so is the authority to have the sacraments. The Sacraments are done through the Church by bishops and preists. The Lutheran church has no preists or bishops because it lost its authority when it left the bishops. They can not ordain a preist because they have no bishops and no succession.

To say that Ignatius was saying there is something called an improper Eucharist is your own interpolation. He wasn’t saying that a Eucharist that is not permitted by the bishop is still Eucharist. What he was saying is that only what is allowed by the bishop is proper. You are splitting hairs in words, just so that you can consist in your position. Ignatius did not allow for any Eucharist apart from the bishop. The Eucharist was only allowed in communion and with permision of the bishop.

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

If the RCC views other denominations as valid (though less tha n perfect) means of salvation, then it would follow that ordination in Protestant denominations must also be be “valid though less than perfect”.

Interesting.

Peace

No, they do not accept any protestant denomination as valid for salvation. Remember, “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. All salvation comes through the Catholic Church. If someone is saved, it is as a member of the Catholic Church. The Sacraments were given by Christ to his Church.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

So say you. I wonder if Mr. Ignatius would agree. He said some Eucharists are deemed proper Eucharists. I must assume he believed some Eucharists were **improper **(but still Eucharists). He could have said simply “Only bishops or someone entrusted by the bishop can administer the Eucharist”. He didn’t.

Why would you even want an improper Eucharist? You are going against the Church and its bishops. By doing that you are going against Christ and also The Father who sent Him. You recieve an improper Eucharist every sunday. Whether it is true presence or not is not the issue. The issue is that you are doing it in opposition to Christ’s Church. You bring judgement upon yourself by doing this. This seems to be Ignatius’s opinion.

Now, whether it is actually the real presence or not is a question of whether the Lutheran “preists” have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist. Christ gave authority to specific men. These men handed authority on to others. All authority of consecration is done by the power of Christ, it is not done by an internal power. Now, since Christ gave authority to specific men, it is resonable to conclude that those He did not give authority to could not consecrate the Eucharist.

In the next paragraph to the Smyrnians, Ignatius says, “But that which seems good to him[the Bishop], is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.” Since you are in opposition to the bishops, you can not be sure that it is valid and secure. It also seems like Ignatius is saying that it is not pleasing to God to have a Eucharist apart from the bishop.

 

[EA_Man]

jimmy:

No, they do not accept any protestant denomination as valid for salvation. Remember, “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. All salvation comes through the Catholic Church. If someone is saved, it is as a member of the Catholic Church. The Sacraments were given by Christ to his Church.

It seems to me that Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16; Gaudium et spes 22; Nostra Aeta 3) and the writings of John-Paul II (*Crossing the Threshold of Hope) *andCardinal Ratzinger (God and the World), make every allowance for the salvation of non-Catholics and even non-Christians. I’m sure that this is due to some unconcious or mystical affiliation with the Catholic Church. Perhaps you can explain what V2 and the former Pope and Prefect intended in their writings.

Peace

 

[cjaubert]

This is amazing. No Protestant can seem to give me the answer to a very simple question. Let me try to restate the issue to get an answer: Protestant churches are run by Protestant ministers. These ministers, generally, attend some kind of Protestant seminary and claim to be ordained upon graduation. Then, as ordained ministers, they get jobs running churches, or, they start their own churches. Similarly, in the Catholic world, people attend Catholic seminary and upon graduation are ordained as priests by the Catholic Church itself. Then, the priests undertake various vocations, including, say, monastic life, diocesan life, etc. Using a parish priest as an example, the priest then ministers to his parish while being guided by the Archdiocese; he does not make up his own rules on what to teach in his church.

My most basic question is, what is the Protestant equivalent of Catholic priestly ordination? My other questions are: What is the Protestant equivalent of the ordination arm of the Catholic Church? What gives a Protestant minister the right to run a Protestant church? Is it their ordination? Or, do you not have to be ordained to run a Protestant church? Regardless, who gave the person who ordained the minister the right to ordain anyone? Was that right given by the Bible (if so, please cite me Chapter and Verse)? Was that right given by something else OUTSIDE the Bible? If so, by what authority does that extra-Biblical right exist, and who does it exist in favor of?

I can hear a Protestant now saying, “Well, what gives the Catholic Church the right to ordain priests”? Besides being another non-answer to my questions, the real answer is, that is beside the point. The Catholic Church (whether it is Jesus Christ’s church or not) is what it is - its doctrines are its doctrines, its dogmas are its dogmas, and its governing make-up is its governing make-up. No Catholic disagrees, for example, that the Pope is the head of the Church, that the Catechism contains the Church’s teaching, that an Archbishop heads up local areas, etc. I am not attempting to argue Catholic-Protestant doctrine here, I am just trying to understand Protestantism comparatively. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Can’t someone just give me some simple answers? These questions really are not that difficult.

 

[Angainor]

cjaubert:

My most basic question is, what is the Protestant equivalent of Catholic priestly ordination?

There is nothing comparable.

cjaubert:

My other questions are: What is the Protestant equivalent of the ordination arm of the Catholic Church?

There is nothing comparable.

cjaubert:

What gives a Protestant minister the right to run a Protestant church?

He doesn’t possess a right to run a Protestant church. He has permission to.

cjaubert:

Is it their ordination?

Yes, the process of gaining permission to run a church is ordination.

cjaubert:

Or, do you not have to be ordained to run a Protestant church?

cjaubert:

You need to be ordained to have permission to run a Protestant church.

cjaubert:

Regardless, who gave the person who ordained the minister the right to ordain anyone?

That person doesn’t possess a right to ordain anyone. That person has permission to.

cjaubert:

Was that right given by the Bible (if so, please cite me Chapter and Verse)? Was that right given by something else OUTSIDE the Bible? If so, by what authority does that extra-Biblical right exist, and who does it exist in favor of?

not applicable, not applicable, not applicable

cjaubert:

Can’t someone just give me some simple answers? These questions really are not that difficult.

I tried to make the answers as simple as possible.

 

[Todd_Easton]

RyanL:

As I am most familiar with the Baptists, I will tell you that there is an election of a new pastor by the congregation. The ecclesial community as a whole decides if the man is the right one for the job of sheparding their flock.

St. Paul wasn’t too hot on the idea of Christians chosing their own leaders:

3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3)

However, St. Paul was in favor of apostolic succession:

1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1)

5This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters [bishops] in every town as I directed you, 6if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. 7For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; 9he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5)

 

[Angainor]

Todd Easton:

3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3)I wish you could see this passage from the eyes of a Protestant looking at Catholicism.

(wander into myths…)
Todd Easton:
However, St. Paul was in favor of apostolic succession:
1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1)Timothy is told to teach “what he has heard”. I don’t see how this establishes Timothy as possessing authority. The “things he has heard” are what possess authority. If Timothy teaches “what he has heard”, then he is doing right, and deserves to be listened to. If he teaches something else, then he doesn’t deserve to be listened to.
Todd Easton:
5This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters [bishops] in every town as I directed you, 6if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. 7For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; 9he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5)Same thing here. Are you arguing for Sola Scriptura? It is the “sure word as taught” that holds authority. If bishops “hold firm”, they deserve to be listened to. It is the sure word that gives the bishops authority, not the fact that they are bishops.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Why would you even want an improper Eucharist?

Of course I don’t. The point is to establish that Eucharists are possible at all without Bishops.

“Let that be deemed a proper56 Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.”

This is basically a Protestant position. This basically says that a Eucharist administered by a bishop is deemed proper. It really says nothing about Eucharists not administered by Bishops. It doesn’t really rule that they could be proper also.

In a Protestant church the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is entrusted to a Pastor. The Lord’s Supper administered by a Lutheran Pastor is deemed proper. We do not claim all other celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are improper.

 

[cjaubert]

Argainor, you are begging the question. Who or what gives a person who PERMITS a Protestant minister to run a Protestant church the right to permit him to run a Protestant church? By what authority does he have the right to give anyone permission to do anything? My point is, if I gave you permission to come into my house, that permission would be valid, because I own my house and, by definition, I have the right to let you in, keep you out, or whatever. I could not, however, give you permission to go into, say, a stranger’s house, because I don’t own that house and, therefore, I don’t have the right to give you permission.

Thus, using your terminology, the real question is, “What authority gives one permission to ordain a Protestant minister?”

 

[Angainor]

cjaubert:

Thus, using your terminology, the real question is, “What authority gives one permission to ordain a Protestant minister?”

Let me point out that even if a Lutheran Pastor is ordained by the Lutheran Church heirarchy, they still do not possess a right to be a Lutheran Minister anywhere. Individual congregations call a pastor and invite him to be their pastor. A Lutheran minister needs permission from both the Church heirarchy and the individual congregation to be a minister.

There really isn’t any “authority” involved whatsoever. I don’t know how to get you to understand. If I were stranded on a tropical island with a bunch of other Lutherans, we could just choose one of us to be our minister.

In the regular world where I am not stranded on an island, Lutherans have set up a sysem for training and choosing pastors. This involves the Church Heirarchy choosing people they think are appropriate and ordaining them, thus giving their approval to be a pastor. The pastor must also then gain approval from the local congregation.

 

[StCsDavid]

Thanks for your posts Angainor as I’ve gained a better point of view on how Protestants view things. I heartily disagree, but at least I know a little better the approach being taken.

Correct me if I’m wrong…what I’ve gathered in your messages, a Lutheran minister gains permission from the congregation to perform what Lutherans believe to be the consecration of the bread and wine and other sacraments of the Lutheran faith. So if a minister fell out of favor with the flock, they could take that permission away from him? I might have missed this in previous posts, but do Lutherans believe that Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ? If so, then it seems a person’s ability to act as an instrument of God in this regard is solely at the discretion of the congregation. A minister could be stripped of his ability to perform this sacrament at the whim of his or her flock. Oh, I’m sure there’s a whole process involved, but just in simple terms, if the people of a congregation disliked the pastor enough, they could rid themselves of him or her.

If on the other hand, Eucharist is merely a symbol for you, then I suppose it makes sense that its symbolic consecration can be more subject to the will of the people.

Finally, who gave Luther the authority to start his own church? I understand the frustration he must have felt seeing some of the practices that were going on in his day, but it always seemed to me that he threw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Angainor]

StCsDavid:

Correct me if I’m wrong…what I’ve gathered in your messages, a Lutheran minister gains permission from the congregation to perform what Lutherans believe to be the consecration of the bread and wine and other sacraments of the Lutheran faith. So if a minister fell out of favor with the flock, they could take that permission away from him?

Yes, with cause (if he wasn’t perfoming his duites etc.).

StCsDavid:

A minister could be stripped of his [strike]ability[/strike] permission to perform this sacrament at the whim of his or her flock.

I corrected you above. I hope that clears it up some more. It is not a question of “authority” or “ability” but permission. It is also not on a “whim”.

StCsDavid:

Finally, who gave Luther the authority to start his own church?

authority authority authority! This thread is really hung up on “authority”.

Luther didn’t possess authority to “start his own church”.

 

[cjaubert]

Angainor, thanks for your simple answers. I, too, am now a little clearer on this. But, at the same time, I just do not understand why anyone would think that a person could be given permission to consecrate the Eucharist (Jesus Christ Himself) by the up or down vote of lay people using whatever criteria they want. Why would anyone subscribe to or follow such a religion? Makes no sense to me…

By the way, I trust that you understand that my posts and questions to you, and others, are meant with respect and love. That does not mean, though, that I have to agree or follow your logic (which, with respect, I don’t).

God bless…

 

[StCsDavid]

Angainor:

Yes, with cause (if he wasn’t perfoming his duites etc.).I corrected you above. I hope that clears it up some more. It is not a question of “authority” or “ability” but permission. It is also not on a “whim”.authority authority authority! This thread is really hung up on “authority”.

Luther didn’t possess authority to “start his own church”.

Okay, I’m probably still a few fries short of a Happy Meal on this, but let me ask it this way…

Who gave Luther “permission” to start his own church, or did he just strike out on his own and do it, or do you posite that he simply reverted back to doing it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place?

Also, I echo that we ask these questions with respect. It’s really quite fascinating to see this point of view.

Finally, I ask this tongue in cheek, do you Lutheran folks have trouble with authority in other areas of your life? I suspect not as I’ve never seen anything that suggest our jails are stocked with Lutherans.

 

[Angainor]

cjaubert:

But, at the same time, I just do not understand why anyone would think that a person could be given permission to consecrate the Eucharist (Jesus Christ Himself) by the up or down vote of lay people using whatever criteria they want.

I can see why you would think that, but it is not quite true. The criteria we use is not whim. The criteria we use is our best understanding of the priciples laid out in God’s word. God’s word is where the authority is.

cjaubert:

By the way, I trust that you understand that my posts and questions to you, and others, are meant with respect and love. That does not mean, though, that I have to agree or follow your logic (which, with respect, I don’t).

God bless…

I understand, and thank you. I appreciate you asking the questions.

 

[Angainor]

StCsDavid:

Finally, I ask this tongue in cheek, do you Lutheran folks have trouble with authority in other areas of your life? I suspect not as I’ve never seen anything that suggest our jails are stocked with Lutherans.

This is an excellent question! The answer may help you understand my position. You ask it tongue in cheek, but this is a serious question.

Historically I think it is probably true that Protestants in general have had higher than average trouble with the authority of Kings and Queens, but for a more modern example:

I have serious problems with the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to declare what it is that the US Constitution says and have their word be law that everyone must follow—especially when their declarations are clearly at odds with the plain text. Authority should lie with the Constitution itself, which is the contract between the people and their government. I believe in the “rule of law”.

If you compare the trouble I have with the authority of SCOTUS with the trouble I have with the authority of Catholicism…

 

[cjaubert]

Angainor:

I can see why you would think that, but it is not quite true. The criteria we use is not whim. The criteria we use is our best understanding of the priciples laid out in God’s word. God’s word is where the authority is.I understand, and thank you. I appreciate you asking the questions.

I did not use the word “whim,” you did. Regardless, that’s not the point. If the church members’ vote is, for whatever reason, “We want Clarence to be our pastor and we permit him to consecrate the Eucharist,” then, as I understand it, Clarence may now consecrate the Eucharist. If, six months later, the church members then change their mind (for whatever reason) and decide that Clarence is not doing his job well (using whatever criteria they want), and they vote him out, is he now forever unable to consecrate the Eucharist until some other church decides to vote him in again OR until he unilaterally decides to start his own new church? If so (and I think this is what you are saying), does this truly make any sense to you?

As for the Supreme Court, do you truly believe that the framers of the Constitution should have just written the document and given it to the people with the instructions, in effect, “Here you go, guys, figure it out on your own”? What would happen in that instance (i.e., without a Supreme Court) if Betty thinks it is okay sell child pornography because it is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, but Gladys thinks it is not okay? How would that dilemma ever get resolved? Would Gladys and her friends who agree with her just get mad and start a new country and write their own Constitution? (I presume you get the analogy…)

 

[Kay_Cee]

StCsDavid:

Who gave Luther “permission” to start his own church, or did he just strike out on his own and do it, or do you posite that he simply reverted back to doing it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place?

When I read this question, I couldn’t wait to see Angainor’s answer since I’ve often wondered about this myself.

I see in the Bible where Jesus says He is going to build His Church, but I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where permission is granted to anybody else to begin a church.

Angainor, why did you ignore this question?

 

[Akanke]

I have chosen to reference the Church of the Nazarene since I was raised in it for 24 years as a pastor’s daughter.

More information on the beliefs and doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene can be found here. Click here for frequently asked questions about the manual for the Church of the Nazarene. I was unable to locate a history of the Church of the Nazarene on the official site, but Southern Nazarene University provided a history for the Church of the Nazarene.

What follows is e-mail correspondence between myself and the general editor for the Church of the Nazarene. He works at the Headquarters for the Church of the Nazarene in Kansas City, Missouri. Knowing in advance what the answer would be, I decided it would be more reliable coming from one of the “hierarchy” for this denomination.

Akanke:

Greetings, Sir!

I hope this e-mail finds you well. I have read the website and looked in the manual for the Church of the Nazarene, and I am curious to know by what authority the Church of the Nazarene ordains ministers. That is to say, I’m looking to learn the power that has granted the Church of the Nazarene the authority to ordain people to be ministers. What changes about a person when they are ordained? (How is a person who is ordained better able to carry out a ministry than one who is not ordained, if that assumption is true?)

I appreciate your response, and thank you in advance.

Church of the Nazarene:

RESPONSE:
Thank you for your inquiry. The authority by which the General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene ordain qualified candidates to the Christian Ministry rests upon the following foundations:

1. Scripture
   The New Testament describes such ordinations as practices of the earliest Christian Church. The Pastoral Epistles clearly describe the characteristics of those candidates deemed qualified for the ministry and oversight of the Church. Hence, on the precedent established by Scripture, and in keeping with the experience and practice of the New Testament Church as well as the historic Christian Church, the Church of the Nazarene, (which stands in the normative tradition of Scriptural Christianity) follows this practice.
2. Polity
   Using Scripture as our reference point, candidates are examined, required to submit to a curriculum that includes outcomes based competencies that are measurable and quantifiable, and observed within a framework of service, accountability and duration. Upon meeting such conditions as deemed necessary, and manifesting those behaviors essential to the Christian ministry, candidates are elected to Ordination by the District Assembly and are ordained by the presiding General Superintendent.

I am not exactly sure that I understand the heart of your question.

With all due respect, I find it interesting that any Protestant denomination who holds such high regard for Scripture (Sola Scriptura) would so quickly and adamantly abandon the idea of “authority” to the point that they don’t even understand what is referenced when the word is used.