Ten years ago this week, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and The Episcopal Church launched a relationship of shared mission and ministry in a worship service and ceremony at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.
This relationship, known as full communion, is described in Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement adopted by both churches. The document states: “We do not know to what new, recovered, or continuing tasks of mission this Concordat will lead our churches, but we give thanks to God for leading us to this point. We entrust ourselves to that leading in the future, confident that our full communion will be a witness to the gift and goal already present in Christ, ‘so that God may be all in all’ (I Corinthians 15:28).”
Well, the ELCA is a church in America.
Evangelical, or Lutheran … I really doubt it, having checked out many of them whilst in search of a spiritual home at a time (and in a place) where orthodox churches in the Anglican tradition did not exist.
And see what the ELCA has come to……..
IMO this has not worked our as billed with the Lutherans getting the short end of the rope.
Actually the E?CA and TEC should merge, both are hardly Christian, both ordain homosexuals, both are more concerned about social issues than what the Bible actually says. The E?CA is Lutheran in name only.
I live very near a significant Midwestern university. Right next to campus is an ELCA building that has displayed a rainbow triangle since long before I ever heard about Gene Robinson. I always wondered why they would chose that particular “icon” to identify who they are and who they welcome. BTW, from what I understand, membership is fairly ordinary. In proclaiming that GLBT’s are welcome you are announcing that others are not.
At the risk of being accused of asking inconvenient questions… How does a “church” that claims catholicity, in the sense historically understood and dependent upon apostolic succession, enter into sacramental communion with a “church” that neither has, nor believes to be necessary, apostolic succession?
#6 Ad Orientem
At the risk of being accused of asking inconvenient questions…
1. Please define what you say “catholicity” means and whether this is different to the meaning of “catholic” and if so what you say “catholic” means;
2. Please explain the sense in which you qualify “catholicity” by the words “as historically understood”;
3. Please clarify by whom you believe that definition has been historically understood and give sources;
4. If you believe that the definition in #1 and #2 is believed by particular churches, please set out fully which churches, and whether they believe an identical definition to one another;
5. Since TEC is an Anglican church, and this is an Anglican blog, please explain whether and if so which of those churches in #4 are in sacramental communion with members of the Anglican Communion.
6. if not, please explain why Anglicans should give two hoots for your definition?
7. Just for information could you also please clarify whether you are also a Donatist.
Pagemaster,
[blockquote] 1. Please define what you say “catholicity†means and whether this is different to the meaning of “catholic†and if so what you say “catholic†means; [/blockquote]
“The Church is also catholic because of its relation to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The word catholic means full, complete, whole, with nothing lacking. God alone is full and total reality; in God alone is there nothing lacking.
Sometimes the catholicity of the Church is understood in terms of the Church’s universality throughout time and space. While it is true that the Church is universal — for all men at all times and in all places — this universality is not the real meaning of the term “catholic” when it is used to define the Church. The term “catholic” as originally used to define the Church (as early as the first decades of the second century) was a definition of quality rather than quantity. Calling the Church catholic means to define how it is, namely, full and complete, all-embracing, and with nothing lacking.
Even before the Church was spread over the world, it was defined as catholic. The original Jerusalem Church of the apostles, or the early city-churches of Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome, were catholic. These churches were catholic — as is each and every Orthodox church today — because nothing essential was lacking for them to be the genuine Church of Christ. God Himself is fully revealed and present in each church through Christ and the Holy Spirit, acting in the local community of believers with its apostolic doctrine, ministry (hierarchy), and sacraments, thus requiring nothing to be added to it in order for it to participate fully in the Kingdom of God.
To believe in the Church as catholic, therefore, is to express the conviction that the fullness of God is present in the Church and that nothing of the “abundant life” that Christ gives to the world in the Spirit is lacking to it (Jn 10:10). It is to confess exactly that the Church is indeed “the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:23; also Col 2:10).”
[url=http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=26 ](Fr. Thomas Hopko)[/url]
[blockquote] 2. Please explain the sense in which you qualify “catholicity†by the words “as historically understoodâ€;[/blockquote]
I refer to the consensus patrum and the canons and decrees of the OEcumenical Councils, and the consistent faith and teaching of the saints.
[blockquote] 3. Please clarify by whom you believe that definition has been historically understood and give sources;[/blockquote]
See my response to your #2.
[blockquote] 4. If you believe that the definition in #1 and #2 is believed by particular churches, please set out fully which churches, and whether they believe an identical definition to one another;[/blockquote]
These would be the apostolic churches namely, the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. Though divided on other issues, with respect to their understanding of “catholicity” and “apostolic succession” they are in substantive agreement with one another.
[blockquote] 5. Since TEC is an Anglican church, and this is an Anglican blog, please explain whether and if so which of those churches in #4 are in sacramental communion with members of the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
None are in communion with the Anglican communion as they are in agreement that the Anglican Communion is heretical and lacks apostolic succession.
[blockquote] 6. if not, please explain why Anglicans should give two hoots for your definition?[/blockquote]
Those Anglicans of the Protestant persuasion should not give two hoots. However my question, which despite asking me to write a small book you failed to answer, remains valid since Anglicans claim to be a “branch” of the apostolic and catholic church spoken of in the creeds. A claim which none of the “other branches” recognizes. Further Anglicans, at least those of the more High Church wing, hold apostolic succession to be rather important and tend to get rather annoyed with the Roman Catholic Church for its refusal to recognize Anglican orders. So I guess one could say that anyone who dismisses apostolic succession and therefor thinks the issue irrelevant can simply move on.
[blockquote] 7. Just for information could you also please clarify whether you are also a Donatist.[/blockquote]
No. Donatism is a condemned heresy. I do however take the Cypriatic view of sacraments, as do the vast majority of Orthodox Christians.
I am intrigued that TEC is in “full communion” with a church that permits lay presidency.
No. 5 – why is a signal that “GLBT’s are welcome” an announcement that others are not? And No. 4, Is the ordination of homosexuals, without more, a matter of any significance? Is not the issue the ordination of non-celibate, unmarried clergy, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/110055_10580_ENG_HTM.htm
This helped me understand what the two churches agreed to when they entered into this Concordat.
The following sums up the most problematic piece, IMHO, and illustrates why I can’t receive communion from a Lutheran pastor who presides at the Lord’s Supper:
[blockquote]But if future Lutheran bishops must have an Anglican bishop present at their consecrations, doesn’t that mean that Anglicans consider their ministries inferior after all? This is one of the primary Lutheran objections to the Concordat.
The solution to these problems is that each church will recognize the ordained ministries of the other as being valid now–even before Lutheran bishops are consecrated with Anglican bishops present, even those Lutheran pastors who have been ordained by bishops not part of the historic succession, even those Episcopal priests who have not subscribed to the Augsburg Confession. In this way, both churches fully recognize the validity of each other’s present reality and heritage.
[/blockquote]
It’s nice that future Lutheran bishops will be in the apostolic succession, but that gives me no assurance that any of the sacraments confected by Lutheran pastors in the meantime are valid.
#8 Ad Orientem
Thanks, you rather confirm what I thought when you say that
[blockquote]These would be the apostolic churches namely, the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. Though divided on other issues, with respect to their understanding of “catholicity†and “apostolic succession†they are in substantive agreement with one another.[/blockquote]
Substantive, is not the same as complete or as you state
[blockquote]”catholicity” in the sense historically understood[/blockquote]
because of course each does not believe that the other churches fulfil your definitions of catholicity in that the other:
1. has “nothing essential … lacking for them to be the genuine Church of Christ”;
2. is “requiring nothing to be added to it in order for it to participate fully in the Kingdom of God”; or
3. similarly “that the Church is indeed “the fullness of him who fills all in all†(Eph 1:23; also Col 2:10).—
Each defines “catholicity” as applying fully only to itself, and so is in the identical position to those such as Anglicans, evangelical or anglo-catholic, who also believe themselves to be an apostolic and historic church, whatever the others think of them.
Relating to this it seems to me extraordinary that a former Catholic, now Orthodox, of some description, spends his time trying to diss Anglicans on blogs through such inconsistent self-generated arguments. What is behind it AD? Could it be malice, or is it just that you are concerned that if we do not become Orthodox, we are all going to hell or something and it is your job to rescue us? Is it the case that you think we should all be Orthodox, or Catholic, or indeed anything but Anglican? What is behind your apparent ill will towards us?
I think you are at risk of missing what is the message of Jesus Christ and seeking to find what we have in common as those made children of God through His sacrifice on the cross, and the opportunity to grow together in our common witness. Of course, the Holy Spirit does act on all of us, if we let him, and I hope in due course that He will persuade you to concentrate on Him rather than on trying to foment division among Christians, but you have to be willing to let Him convict your heart in that matter, and in the meantime you and others are in my prayers.
Re # 12
PM
I find it curious that for all of your very lengthy posts, ad hominems,and multiple questions that you have yet to even address the question which I raised (in a single sentence). There are some who might be inclined to suspect that your posts, particularly #7, are of a nature calculated to deter discussion of the issue I raised via the modus of responding to a question with different ones requiring very lengthy responses and effectively changing the topic. It is a common and often effective tactic in rhetoric.
Since you regard my character as somehow relevant to the issue which I raised (though I admit to not seeing the connection), let me frankly confess that I am the worst of sinners. I have in my life broken in letter or spirit every one of the ten commandments and I struggle daily, often failing, with my vices and passions. I am a worm.
Now that we have dispensed with questions of character, definitions of creedal language and church history, can we address my question #6?
As an aside I take note of posts 9 & 11 (Anglicans?) who addressed the same question I had in #6. In particular Charles response was rather enlightening as I was unfamiliar with many of the details he brought forth.
Rereading that defense of the [i]Concordat[/i] referred to above by Charles in #11 reminds me of why, as an ELCAer who supported the [i]Concordat[/i], I finally came down to oppose [i]Called to Common Mission[/i] even though it cleaned up several, uh, inelegant difficulties in the [i]Concordat[/i]. For it reveals for anyone willing to pay attention to its actual words that, despite the ELCA-ECUSA agreements’ extended quotations and acceptance of the Niagara Report’s description of Anglican-Lutheran theological consensus, we each had grave misunderstandings of our Ecumenical “partners.” The Lutheran church described by the author there is pretty much unrecognizable as the ELCA I’ve been part of my entire ministry, even in the mid-to-late ’90s.
Then again, the ELCA’s 4-year debate over the [i]Concordat[/i] and [i]CCM[/i], while giving us a temporary respite from arguing over sexuality (which, except in those years, we’ve been doing continuously since the ELCA replaced its LCA/ALC/AELC predecessors), revealed how deeply we who formed the ELCA in the mid-80s had grave misunderstandings of those Lutherans in the other partner church bodies — or even those in a different region of our own church body. It was in the midst of that debate that some of us finally realized that sharing the same statements did not mean sharing the same thoughts.
Serving in Central Illinois, there was a time that this ELCAer could nevertheless enjoy being in formal communion with the Dioceses of Quincy and Springfield. But with the departure of all but a rump of Quincy and much of Springfield barely being in communion with the rest of TEC (at least under +Beckwith), well, there’s not really much to celebrate any more in our “full-communion.”
We [i]can[/i] look at our brethren in Canada (the ACC and ELCIC), though, and see how their full communion has brought them to the point of practically being merged into one church — alas, largely because both have been imploding so quickly that it’s the only way to have enough resources to use the letterhead. Theologically, the ELCA and TEC are already there (that is, imploded into [i]Nowhere[/i]).
I’d like to think that, had Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue imagined the declaration of Interim Eucharistic Fellowship in the ’80s would lead to the state US Lutherans (at least those who would form the ELCA) and US Anglicans (then in the ECUSA) are in today, they would instead of called for decades repentance in ashes and sackcloth.
Christe eleison, Steven+
[url=http://pastorzip.blogspot.com]Pastor Zip’s Blog[/url]
Yes, Steven+, that certainly calls into question the “prophetic” nature of both alleged “churches” rather sharply. Too sharply to be seen by those “in charge” in either gathering. And that is speaking truth to power ne ultra.
#13 Ad Orientem
[blockquote]I find it curious that for all of your very lengthy posts, ad hominems,and multiple questions that you have yet to even address the question which I raised (in a single sentence). There are some who might be inclined to suspect that your posts, particularly #7, are of a nature calculated to deter discussion of the issue I raised via the modus of responding to a question with different ones requiring very lengthy responses and effectively changing the topic. It is a common and often effective tactic in rhetoric.[/blockquote]
Absolute rubbish. With my ruler I have measured my posts on this thread. Mine are much briefer in general, and my longest comment is nine inches long whereas your comment #8 is over one and a half feet long.
Neither have I spoken ad hominem, which you seem to apply to anything with which you disagree, even when you are calling people Protestants and claiming they are heretics.
There is also no question of avoiding questions or detering discussion, although I may indeed not accept the assumptions which you assume all should accept a priori in answering questions you pose.
[blockquote]Since you regard my character as somehow relevant to the issue which I raised (though I admit to not seeing the connection), let me frankly confess that I am the worst of sinners. I have in my life broken in letter or spirit every one of the ten commandments and I struggle daily, often failing, with my vices and passions. I am a worm.[/blockquote]
I am sure in real life you are a pleasant enough chap, but in blogland your entire output seems to be dedicated to attacking the Reformed and Catholic Anglican Church, and it is this on which I have called you. What is with all that? You didn’t really answer my questions, although you did admit to being a worm, which must make typing rather difficult.
[blockquote]Now that we have dispensed with questions of character, definitions of creedal language and church history, can we address my question #6?[/blockquote]
I have indeed answered your question by querying your personal definition of “catholicity” upon which it is predicated. You apply the Ad Orientem, or perhaps even “Orthodox” definition of catholicity to this relationship, and then seek using that to create a proplem of lack of catholicity which needs to be squared upon the basis of the definition you have set up, like a straw man set up solely with the purpose of knocking it down.
Thus you engage in setting up a definition of catholicity which you then suggest is historically and universally held. The purpose of my questions and the outcome of the answers which you gave is to show that in fact your question #6 is based on an eroneous claim for your definition and a category mistake in apply Ad Orientem [or perhaps Orthodox] concepts to Anglican Churches, something I regularly note in your arguments.
On a closer examination of your question I show that like the question “when did you stop beating your wife”, it is based upon an unspoken assumption which may not be true in the way the question is phrased. If the phrasing is accepted, an outcome or anwer becomes inevitable, and this is an erroneous assumption [in this example that the person concerned has beaten his wife].
If the definition you use is erroneous in the way it is used, the answer will not make any more sense. You therefore have your answer – your question does not make sense because it is based on a category mistake of definition.