American Lutheran Church, one of the predecessors. I was actively involved in the merger when I left. My parish was very conservative (odd in Chicago): when the merger happened they sent the parish a woman pastor as a sign of “get with the program.” Several went Missouri synod.Ugh…you were raised in the ELCA?
Raised Missouri; our congregation is Wisconsin Synod.American Lutheran Church, one of the predecessors. I was actively involved in the merger when I left. My parish was very conservative (odd in Chicago): when the merger happened they sent the parish a woman pastor as a sign of “get with the program.” Several went Missouri synod.
I take it from Ugh that you are either MS or Wisconsin Synod?
It’s sad.Raised Missouri; our congregation is Wisconsin Synod.
If I was raised (ALC) ELCA I’d have probably become Orthodox or Roman, too!
What a joke that “church” is.
Missouri has remained conservative fortunately. They are moving toward all that contemporary worship church-growth drivel, though. Morphing into bland American Protestantism. Sadly, that stuff has invaded Roman Catholic parishes, too. The Roman Catholic parish my wife and I were married at has a Sunday night service where they praise-band the Nicene Creed.It’s sad.
I often make the comparison with the Titanic: on the maiden voyage some passangers got off at Ireland before it set out for the ocean. I’ve seen pictures taken, showing them waving to the ship as it went on to oblivion.
I feel like I got off at Ireland, and every time I hear news of my former parish and ELCA, I think of a sinking ship.
Why the parish didn’t go Missouri, I don’t know. We surely were conservative enough.
yes, but for instance, there have been bishops and priests ordained by the Vatican who have NOT been reordained (by economy), whereas without exception every Protestant clergyman (Anglicans included) have been reordained.I must ask, though (mainly because I don’t get to talk to Orthodox often in my neck of the woods)…did the EO succeed where Jesus and the apostles failed with the Western Church? I understand there are a great many commonalities, but any difference is a difference nonetheless.
Yes, the problem of trying to keep this as simple as possible has sacrifced this somewhat. I tried to summarize the three major groups of “Magisterial” (the groups you name, and the Calvinists) “Radical” and “Restorationalist.” Of course, the fact that we have three groups, all Protestant, opposed to one another (in the sense their central features, the interpretations of the five solas, do not agree and are in some way diametrically opposed) also goes back to the point of my OP. All three groups have been around for centuries now, all claim, in some way, to represent the true Church, but all are separated by a lot of history from the first century which I’m afraid isn’t accounted for, nor how they succeeded where the historical Church (represented by the ECF) failed.With Anglicans, and my own Lutheran tradition, the five solas are understood completely differently than modern neo-evangelicalism uses them. I think it’s important for dialogue that this not be missed.
Solo fide or Sola gratia?You have not accurately stated what those two men wrote. Lets talk about faith and works in Clement and Ignatius. Show me.
Here is the problem…You’re right the two are mutally exclusive. That doesn’t mean the other is d-mned to Hell. I could go more into that, but it would be too long. Btw, I’m not giving up on the Protestants either.
But the fact remains, that despite Rome’s valid apostolic succession, it has still resulted in two divergent doctrinal systems (which runs directly against both groups claims that apostolic succession preserves pure doctrine and serves as a unifying force in contrast to Protestant chaos). I realize the similarities are great, but even one difference of opinion on doctrine goes against the 100% true church idea.yes, but for instance, there have been bishops and priests ordained by the Vatican who have NOT been reordained (by economy), whereas without exception every Protestant clergyman (Anglicans included) have been reordained.
It has to do with Apostolic succession and the maintanence of it and other things. I hope on touching on it in in reponse the post of why Orthodoxy over the Vatican.
Well, I understand the Anglicans claim the same succession as Rome does. Lutherans do not (as far as I am aware). We claim apostolic succession is doctrinal, not ministerial.In particular, the Anglicans and Lutherans are a “problem” as at least some of them claim Apostolic succession in the Orthodox/Vatican sense of the world (that not all do within those groups is itself a problem for this claim). For that see above.
Your parish started out as a Bible study at Wheaton College? What parish is that if I may ask?As St. Paul shows in Corinthians, you can’t claim different things and claim you are one church. “God is not the author of confusion.”
Actually this former Protestant did go away, admitting defeat. As did the majority of my parish, including the priests (the parish started as a Bible study in Wheaton Christian College). One of our parisioners was the head Moody Bible Institute Radio: he got involved when his daughter, a Moody student, was getting involved with another student (now husband) who was reading about Orthodoxy. “We have to see what this cult is, and put a stop to it,” he told his wife. He, the wife, both adult children and their spouses and the grandparents (and I think a brother) ended up being chrismated into our “cult.” He runs Ancient Faith Radio:
ancientfaith.com/
Btw, his break with Moody was amicable and fair and they left friends.
Our parish also houses on our property a conservative ecumenical group which includes Orthodox, those in communion with the Vatican and Protestants. The Protestants have to keep on being replentished, because they keep on joining the first two.
I think that you are projecting here.
Actully it’s Christ.But the fact remains, that despite Rome’s valid apostolic succession, it has still resulted in two divergent doctrinal systems (which runs directly against both groups claims that apostolic succession preserves pure doctrine and serves as a unifying force in contrast to Protestant chaos). I realize the similarities are great, but even one difference of opinion on doctrine goes against the 100% true church idea.
It is either Rome or Constantinople.
The Lutheran State Churchs of Sweden and Finland claim Apostolic Succession (there were attempts to unite with the Anglicans on this basis, but the Swedes found the English too Calvinist). How doctrinal they see this I have yet to understand.Well, I understand the Anglicans claim the same succession as Rome does. Lutherans do not (as far as I am aware). We claim apostolic succession is doctrinal, not ministerial.
All Saints Antiochean Orthodox Church in Chicago. Btw, I wasn’t part of hte original group. I think I first came righ after they became Orthodox, but I knew of them just before that (the minister/then priest’s wife, who came across Orthodoxy while studying to be a priestess in the Episcopal church, converted before the rest and came to our Cathedral for communion before they were chrismated).Your parish started out as a Bible study at Wheaton College? What parish is that if I may ask?
(I grew up in Wheaton and in College Church)
Okay, let me ask it this way; Are Roman Catholics, in all of their doctrinal positions, practicing the faith of the ancient Church, and of the apostles? I don’t just mean the creedal basics. I mean the full 100% truth on every single doctrinal issue?Actully it’s Christ.
The Orthodox objection to the Ravenna definition as being between those in communion with the Vatican and those Churches in communion with Constantinople is that it is NOT the Orthodox Faith. Constantinople is not the font of communion, the Church is. The diptychs are mutual and reciprocal, and in communion with the Fathers who passed the Church to us. Constaninople has been struck from them when they erred. Again the practice of the Orthodox on this matter is that of the Early Church.
yes, the Vatican claims are mutually exclusive of the ecclessiology of the Ancient Church. But as the Ancient Church always worked for reconciliation (the DIvine Liturgy (written in the present form 5th) has prayers for the healing of schism and heresy), so do we, and pray that those divergences might be brought back to 100% Orthodoxy.
As we say, as regards the ancient Pentarcy: Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith, and he will first.
If they do…they are not confessing the Lutheran Confessions view of the ministry and apostolic succession. This sort of thing, though, happened a lot in Europe under the state church model. The Prussian union of the Reformed churches and Lutheran churches into one amalgamation…which is theologically impossible.The Lutheran State Churchs of Sweden and Finland claim Apostolic Succession (there were attempts to unite with the Anglicans on this basis, but the Swedes found the English too Calvinist). How doctrinal they see this I have yet to understand.
No, of course not. If they were, they’d be Orthodox. And Benedict would be first.Okay, let me ask it this way; Are Roman Catholics, in all of their doctrinal positions, practicing the faith of the ancient Church, and of the apostles? I don’t just mean the creedal basics. I mean the full 100% truth on every single doctrinal issue?
Yes, I don’t know how they fit in exactly. I don’t know their explanation of it. I remember knowing about it way back when (but from studying history, not theology) and when the bishops from Sweden took part in the celebration for the formatlion of ELCA, they withdrew so not to take part in the “ordination” of the presiding bishops, and it had to do with the Apostolic Succession claim. Norway and Danemark didn’t do it, but then Danemark went in whole heartedly into the Reformation and dragged conservative Norway into it.If they do…they are not confessing the Lutheran Confessions view of the ministry and apostolic succession. This sort of thing, though, happened a lot in Europe under the state church model. The Prussian union of the Reformed churches and Lutheran churches into one amalgamation…which is theologically impossible.
Okay, good (and by the way, I am obviously in agreement with your point about the Pope here LoL. In fact, I think aside from the issue of the infallibility of ecumenical councils, I rather like the Orthodox belief on church polity).No, of course not. If they were, they’d be Orthodox. And Benedict would be first.
Of course, he also then would not be infallible, nor supreme.
I might be too quick here, but I’ll return to it.Okay, good (and by the way, I am obviously in agreement with your point about the Pope here LoL. In fact, I think aside from the issue of the infallibility of ecumenical councils, I rather like the Orthodox belief on church polity).
So how, then, did the apostolic model fail in Western Christianity? If it failed, in your view, with Protestantism, then turnabout is fair if the Roman Church is also in error.
I would agree with you that that was Melancthon’s view in the document you referenced. “You are the bishop of Rome, you are the figurehead of our Western Church; but you cannot bind our conscience with dogmas you proclaim without the consent of the bishops all together and without the consent of the entire Church and the Scriptures.”I might be too quick here, but I’ll return to it.
I think if you look at what is going on in Constantinople now, it is good idea of what was happened in Rome. Rome in the waning days of the first millenium was not a power, it was barely a city. Constantinople is still in a city, but the powers that be call it Istanbul. Both Romes in their nadirs had no power, but a tremendous reservoir of prestige built up from bygown days. Both, however, in their desperation overextended this reservoir, acting as if pretige meant power that they had to demonstrate. Hence both of them redefining themselves as fonts of communion, the aboslute veto and supreme appeal. This both caused the Great Schism with the East, and eventually the Reformation. It has been some time since I’ve read the Book of Concord Treatise on the Primacy of the Pope, but I recall that it was somewhat the same attitude of the Orthodox: we would respect you more if you weren’t so overbearing, and we don’t mind you speaking for the Church, but you can’t speak to the Church. You may head the Church, but you are not Her Head, and nor are you the Church. l’eglise, c’est moi? No.
Now that you mention the consent of the entire Church, this is a hot topic on the Eastern Catholic forum and its predecessor. A BIG issue.I would agree with you that that was Melancthon’s view in the document you referenced. “You are the bishop of Rome, you are the figurehead of our Western Church; but you cannot bind our conscience with dogmas you proclaim without the consent of the bishops all together and without the consent of the entire Church and the Scriptures.”
I think that’s the inherent problem with the doctrine of the papacy as proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church. By virtue of his office and the dogmas associated with it, the Pope does not require the consent and agreement of the Church to proclaim dogma. Once the bishops themselves have agreed to accept whatever the present Pope may happen to teach, their very ability to function as teachers and defenders of the faith within Christendom is now compromised. They are now, instead of being overseers within the diocese they shepherd, reduced to being a voice of what the Roman diocese may happen to teach.Now that you mention the consent of the entire Church, this is a hot topic on the Eastern Catholic forum and its predecessor. A BIG issue.
We are accused of having a primacy of the laity (we call it the sense of the Faithful). Of course the examplest that really stick in the craw is when the Emperors, anxious for Western aid, strong armed bishops to sign union agreements with the Vatican. When the bishops returned they found themselves deposed, the Faithful flocked to the bishops who opposed the sell out, and nothing comes of it. We keep on being told that we have rejected “Ecumenical” Councils that we accepted. Nothing of the sort. EVERY Orthodox Christian is required to defend in his station the Orthodox Faith, which is why the only change we have introduced into the Creed was changing the “we believe” to “I believe.” For instance at an ordination, the Faithful must say “axios” “worthy”: if someone says “anaxios” “unworthy” the ordination can’t continue, and the objection must be investigated (yes, it does happen). The priest who married me, sometime previously had performed a “lawless” marriage (one to a non-baptized person). The parish left to other parishes and told the bishop that they wouldn’t go back until he dealt with the matter. There was a little canonical penance, and he was told he would be defrocked if he did it again (he made a point of getting evidence of my ex wifes baptism). Recently one of the jurisdictions had a scandal with only one bishop was pushing to have dealt with. The Faithful flocked to that one bishop, and eventually action was taken, which included the deposition of a bishop.
I’ve heard it said that Vatican I reduced the rest of the bishops to bishop making machines, as there was really now only one bishop. And as much as the supporters of the Vatican protest it, that is an accurate description: I’ve seen it proclaimed from the pulpit that the seminaries teach “the pope is 51% of the Church’s infallibility”).I think that’s the inherent problem with the doctrine of the papacy as proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church. By virtue of his office and the dogmas associated with it, the Pope does not require the consent and agreement of the Church to proclaim dogma. Once the bishops themselves have agreed to accept whatever the present Pope may happen to teach, their very ability to function as teachers and defenders of the faith within Christendom is now compromised. They are now, instead of being overseers within the diocese they shepherd, reduced to being a voice of what the Roman diocese may happen to teach.
And St. I Clement reiterates what the Lord said (XLII-XLIV):This is expressly against the witness of Scripture, and the practice of the ancient Church. When Christ commissioned the apostolic ministry, he said “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.” He says that He sends them individually in the same manner as He Himself was sent; hence He grants to no one a prerogative or lordship above the rest.
Btw, we do distinguish between the definitions of the Councils (which are infallible and eternal) and the canons (which are not). You’re right, the bishops should have sought ordination from the pope (which is now what is done by the Vatican), and the fact that they didn’t again speaks against the Vatican interpretation of SS Clement and Ignatius. Yes, it is a human law, but as I said, one of divine sanction, as God works through history (the Fathers speak of how the fulness of time of Christ’s coming was because Rome had united the world in one empire, and Alexandria had translated the Scriptures into the lingua franca Greek) and that good order St. Clement refers to was set up by the saints. As Christ says, all authority is given to Him on Heaven and on Earth: He tells Mary Magdalene not to grasp Him because He will ascend to Heaven but will pass into the Church, His Body (in icons of the Ascension, the Theotokos, a type of the Church, is shown directly below Christ in Heaven, to show that He is present in His Church until He come again). The Church works in history. Nicea is explicit that it is not setting up anything, but merely confirming what had been the practice.The Council of Nicea resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; indeed, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.
Again, Nicea was just confirming what had preceded it (for instance, in the Apostolic canons).Again the Council of Nicea determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several.
Again the ontological whole of the episcopate, the Priesthoold of Christ in His Body, Bishops and the Faithful, acting in concert.The same was observed for a long time, not only in the East, but also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.
And so it was, and in the Orthodox Church, is.Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.
Again, an ontological whole.Jerome says: If the question is concerning authority, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same dignity and priesthood.