About 500 people gathered at Central Moravian Feb. 10 to celebrate the full communion of the Episcopal Church and the Northern and Southern Provinces of the Moravian Church. The Episcopal Church approved the full-communion agreement at General Convention in 2009, and the two Moravian provinces approved it in 2010. The churches had practiced interim eucharistic sharing since 2003.
This historic occasion featured a prelude with music by the Central Moravian Brass Ensemble, and opened with a procession of nearly a dozen Episcopal and Moravian bishops. For this event, the Central Moravian choir merged with those of the Cathedral Church of the Nativity and Trinity Church, Bethlehem.
Yet for all its importance, the service was less than two hours long, including the singing of 11 hymns. The service honored both churches’ traditions on the elements of Communion, offering worshipers a choice between wine or grape juice. Recitations were short but heartfelt, stressing fellowship and unity.
Herein is the perfect example of the utter meaninglessness of these joint Communion agreements. Grape juice is not a valid element according to the rubrics of the Episcopal church. And yet, we sell our own Eucharistic understanding out for some hand holding and good ecumenical feelings. Sorry if that sounds harsh but if we can’t even agree on what the proper elements are, then what does saying “we are in Communion” possibly mean in reality or in terms of theological substance?
All my previous critiques of the ELCA/ECUSA hookup continue with this one, except with the addition that Moravian claims to tactile apostolic succession are pious legends at best. Yet another “bold” move by a couple of declining Northern European denominations. Next time let’s do something more fun, like getting together with the African Methodist Episcopal Church instead of yet more boring elderly white people.
Amen, Senior Priest!
I would second that, SeniorPriest. I’ve always wondered why we go out of our way to enter into communion with the groups that are even whiter than we are.
I am ignorant of Moravian theology. I do know that they make good cookies.
I am excited about this relationship. Why? Well, for starters, my organist is an ordained Moravian pastor from outside the USA. He is a wonderful, faithful Christian man and a talented musician. Now, his province of course is not part of this new inter-communion, but our congregation has learned a lot from watching and listening to him.
He has taken a liking, at least it seems that way, to our Anglican heritage and traditions, ie. liturgy, vestments, etc., while we have taken a liking to his boldness in proclaiming Jesus as THE Way THE Truth and THE Life.
I hope that this theology can rub off on TEC
Did a Deacon preside or did we stick to the old fashioned Anglican way of priests and bishops presiding at the eucharist. It’s weird how it’s such a huge problem when the Diocese of Sydney suggests it but not when we’re entering into “full communion” with the Moravians.
Driver8 – the cognitive dissonance which arises from attempting to willy-nilly jam two wildly dissonant Christian traditions together is limitless. I prefer to be up front with all this. Yes, the ELCA and Moravians are Christians. Their ways can lead to salvation just as effectively as any other in Christianity. Their ordinations and some of their sacraments are not valid according to the witness of the Church of the Holy and Great Councils, but cannot be said to be devoid of efficacy. No “bishop” anywhere can possibly grant priestly sacramental authority by the stroke of a pen, no matter what any local synod of a shrinking and heterodox faith community says.
These attempts to join traditions are really quite silly (IMHO). We are the body of Christ and in the kingdom the lines are not drawn. Our attempts to draw them according to traditions are utterly useless. I am an anglican — and love being one but am not interested in all these divisions. I’m at home at AME, Baptist, Roman, Orthodox … you name it.
Any church body that decides to jump into bed with TEC has obviously lost whatever theological moorings they ever had.
Yes, the old semi-Catholic distinctives – the insistence on the historic episcopate for example – are out the window. Basically Episcopalians are Swedish Lutherans now (fitting now they’ve sort of merged with Swedish-American Lutherans, as opposed to the Germans in the LCMS): they claim the historic episcopate and think it’s neat (they think it’s ecumenical cred with Rome and the East) but don’t require it for communion/mergers (which is why Swedish-Americans didn’t keep it).
Home
No. 2, Senior Priest: “Moravian claims to tactile apostolic succession are pious legends at best.”
When you come right down to it, whose are not?
Therefore, David, you might find helpful to know that traceable tactile succession from the Apostle John to St Polycarp, to St Irenaeus, through the bishops of Lyons and Arles (with the addition of Hiltigisus of Toulon in 614) to Brihtwald of Canterbury in 693 down the to present day is easily shown.
As someone who came to love Jesus in the Moravian Church, I’m quite surprised at some of the bitter commentary and disdain of “yet more boring elderly white people” on this thread. Haven’t y’all been actually listening to his words in the Sermon on the Mount over the last several weeks?
The peace of the Lord be with y’all (too?!?!).
Yes, and one of my most valued associates in my congregation comes out of 40 years in a Moravian context. I’m just saying that the current TEC/Moravian setup is incoherent and a further consolidation of aging declining white Northern European denominations. It is, in fact, uninteresting and gives rise to must cognitive dissonance and frustration. In themselves the members of the Moravian tradition are true Christians, wonderful, good people, and all that.
Let’s see now, the ELCA is in communion with TEC, Moravian Church, Reform type churches, UMC and is begging at the door of Rome. At this point church doctrine doesn’t mean anything, so why should it matter if any of the groups use grape juice or wine or if they have Apostolic Succession or not? At least the LC-MS is sticking by the Lutheran Confessions and is not part of this circus.
I do agree whole-heartedly with you, #16. Good on the LC-MS! I’m edified by their integrity. And at some time in the past in my neck of the woods our local ELCA pastor and I both agreed that it’s a Common Mistake to think it’s a good thing that Lutherans and Anglicans should each betray their respective theological traditions for the sake of mere ecclesiastical grandstanding.
Sure, it doesn’t make sense. The Episcopalians waived the historic episcopate for the ELCA merger by grandfathering in ELCA’s non-episcopal pastors and now is in communion with other Protestants without requiring them to adopt the Episcopal episcopal claim. (The 1940s Episcopal/Presbyterian merger and COCU won essentially.) Anybody who thinks they can intercommune with other Protestants and ‘beg at the door of Rome’ (or of the Orthodox) for it to join in that intercommunion doesn’t understand a one-true-church claim. (You don’t intercommune with a one true church; either you join it or you don’t.) Because of that claim, Catholic/Protestant official talks are a dead end. Each side knows what the other really teaches and the Protestants will keep voting themselves farther away from Catholicism.
Do people here ever do anything other than complain? I ask my question in all seriousness.
To #19, I am not complaining when I say that one should remain faithful to there confessions. This is especially true when it comes to Holy Communion and the Person of Christ on what happens when you receive the bread and wine. This is why the LC-MS practices closed communion. Everyone at the altar rail is to be the same in doctrine.
Another big joke is interfaith services with Jews and Muslims in a Christian Church. Did anyone ever think about holding one of these in a Muslim country?
Senior Priest and others appear not to have read the text of Following Our Shepherd, nor the 2003 Anglican and Episcopal History, nor the Fetter Lane Common Statement, not C. Daniel Crews _Faith, Hope, Love, A History of the Unitas Fratrum_. I recommend these. Remember that the Moravians developed in the context of Czech 15th century nationalism intending a biblically based reform of the Church just as Anglicanism developed in the context of English 16th century nationalism intending the same reform.
Why would I have a problem with the Fetter Lane Declaration? Well, maybe point iii, in that there’s no traceable tactile succession. Apart from that, I recognize the similar origins and goals of the Moravian movement. Much of the problem of TEC and other denominations’ ecclesiastical promiscuity lies in the fact that those who are appointed to the committees in question are invariably enthusiasts whose goal ab initio is the accomplishment of “full communion”. Therefore, the goal is established as inevitable from the start.
Senior Priest is in error about a Moravian tactile succession. Despite Hapsburg persecution the Moravian succession from the 1450’s is maintained just as the Anglican succession from 1559 has been maintained. An interesting website on the subject of tactile succession is http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/ by Charles Bransom. I recommend again all the booksand journal articles suggested above and remind readers not to pay any attention to assertions unsupported by evidence.
Senior Priest’s final comments sound like sour grapes.
Sorry the church that taught me to love Jesus is giving some of y’all cooties.
Fortunately, his love extends “far as the curse is found.”
I must disagree with Fr. Rightmyer. I have just taken down from my bookshelf *Anglican-Moravian Conversations: The Fetter Lane Common Statement with Essays in Moravian and Anglican History* which was published in 1996 by the Council for Christian Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England.
What the historical essays demonstrate is that the Moravian Church originated in 1467 at the so-called Synod of Lhotka when some sixty individuals from the “Utraquist Church” of Bohemia — that more conservative, and by that date the dominant, section of the Hussite movement that accepted most traditional Catholic doctrine, but insisted on communion in two kinds, and that considered itself in communion with Rome, although Rome did not consider itself in communion with them — who wished to distance themselves further from Rome organized themselves into a “church.” They drew lots to select three men to be their priests. Among the larger group was a Catholic priest; this Catholic priest was then (supposedly) consecrated a bishop by a visiting Waldensian elder, and went on to consecrate as bishop one of the three men selected by lots, who then ordained as priests the other two men so selected. Then the Catholic priest renounced his “Catholic orders” and was (re)ordained by the man whom he had himself consecrated a bishop — and then the whole lot were rebaptized by their new clergy (for some sixty years the they received all converts by baptism, although they practiced infant baptism of their members’ offspring). As the author of the essay, the Anglican Dr. Colin Podmore, writes: “The Waldensians did nor possess the ‘apostolic succession’ as traditionally understood, and, in any case, the Brethren rejected this and wanted nothing to do with it. In obtaining ordination from the Waldensian elder they neither intended to acquire the sign of the historic episcopate nor believed that they had done so.”
They did, however, retain the offices of bishop and priest, and soon revived that of deacon. However, in both 1500 and 1553 their episcopate died out, and new bishops had to be elected and consecrated by their priests, so that the “episcopal succession” of the Moravian Church goes back only to 1553.
So, Tom, could you link me to a site which shows the Moravian succession? I am happy to change my mind….
According to the Moravian Church Southern Province site, in their published paper “The History of the Episcopal Office in the Moravian Church” by Helmut Reiche, Moravian clergy have no legitimate succession whatsoever. Quote “They didn’t know whether this Waldensien priest would be willing to do so, but if he did, they would consider it a confirmation from God. When Michael returned he would ordain Matthias as their bishop. And that is the way it happened. According to ecclesiastical law Michael admittedly had no power to do so. Only a bishop could exercise the right to ordain, the ins ordinis But the brothers were of the opinion that according to biblical apostolic order there was no difference between the ordination of a priest and a bishop. The bishop was only differentiated by his duties. Thus Matthias was ordained as bishop among brothers. He then ordained Brother Elias and Brother Thomas as priest.” I withdraw my characterization of Moravian “orders” as legendary. There is no succession, not by hands, by office, and not in place. They have none whatsoever. The Anglican succession is from the hands of bishops who lived in the same palaces they occupied before the separation from Rome, sat on the same thrones, in the same great cathedrals. Those who called themselves ‘bishops’ were not even so irregularly, and were unquestionably vagantes. Check it out. http://www.mcsp.org/resources/Reichel_History_Epis_Office.PDF
Now, as to the crankiness. Yes, that is true, and probably is a result of bitter disappointment that all of the whiners (of whom I am probably the chief) have had to see the Episcopal Church become a parody of the Anglican tradition, instead of the shining light it was and still could be. I know that in TEC institutionally and theologically all is lost and am very, very sorry for it. And I admit it is rather hypocritical for someone like myself who remains in it to complain about others shortcomings, like lack of proper ordination. But then, I was the last person who successfully declined to be ordained in the same service as a female person, and so my then bishop was required to ordain three men in one service, and two men and one woman in another. In those days everyone’s conscience on that matter was respected. Nowadays opposition to WO is the only thing which renders one canonically unfit to be ordained in TEC.