In what is believed to be a first for the Diocese of El Camino Real, a United Methodist Minister has taken a role in the celebration of the Eucharist. The 8 a.m. service at Trinity Cathedral, San Jose, Calif., on Nov. 11 included the installation of Canon-vicar Lance Beizer.
Hang in there, Anglicans, the Methodists will save you! Just pay no attention to the General Board of Church and Society, like the rest of us in the UMC, and you’ll do fine.
Seriously, somehow we’ve put all that craziness into one office with no authority, and kept them out of the office of bishop. Five General Conferences in a row we’ve voted down normalizing SSA by two-to-one or more, so we’re doin’ something right.
OK, so the whole apostolic succession thing we never figured out. Can you explain it again?
At least the co-celebrant was a Christian (or of a Christian denomination!)
Seriously, I am not a church lawyer; is this “legal?”
The UMC is my current storm shelter, too. Arguably the oldest of the “continuing” churches.
The remains of the catholic facade continue to fall away.
The General Convention of 2006 approved “common joint celebrations” of the Eucharist with the United Methodist Church. The Episcopal Church has a similar agreement with the Moravian Church in America and had one with the predecessor bodies of the ELCA for some 12 years before the Called to Common Mission agreement was adopted. Clergy representing the two churches stand together at the altar but they do not concelebrate. This agreement recognizes that the churches share a common faith and are working toward a common ministry.
As noted above the use of the theological term “apostolic succession” and the meaning of “historic episcopate” continues to be discussed. The goal is a common ministry. The process by which that goal is achieved is to be determined.
Note that the Quadrilateral speaks of “historic episcopate.” “Apostolic succession” is one way to understand the theological implications of historic episcopate.
Tom
The general norm for celebrations conducted under interim- Eucharistic-sharing agreements is that a clergy member from the host congregation or cathedral serves as preacher, while the visiting cleric generally serves as Celebrant. Tom Rightmyer is correct that the Episcopal Church maintained such agreements with the ELCA and its predecessor bodies for a number of years. When Jack Allin was PB, I believe the first formal joint celebration of the Eucharist under the 1982 interim agreement with the ELCA’s three predecessor bodies took place in the Washington National Cathedral. In that first agreement, the theological basis for suspension of the ordinal’s assumption that the Celebrant must be ordained within the Historic Episcopate had not yet been laid by the theology documents for the Concordat, so Bishop Allin served as the Celebrant, with the Presiding Bishops of the three predecessor Lutheran denominations serving as gospeller, preacher, and intercessor.
On that last point — the theological rationale for provisional suspension of the Ordinal’s requirement that a priest be within the historic orders — I thought the theological documents for the Concordat (later “Called to Common Mission”) did a fine job in presenting the rationale for recognizing “apostolic succession/tradition” even in places where the Historic Episcopate had been broken at, or following, the Reformation. And I don’t say that lightly, as I am fully catholic in my understanding of Holy Orders. The fact of the matter, however, is that even the documents of the Roman Church recognize that apostolic succession *can* continue validly through ordination by a priest in cases where a Bishop is, for whatever reason, unavailable. Of course, the Roman Church would not agree with the assessment that this is the case within the ELCA, but the Roman Church also would not agree that this is the case within the Anglican Communion.
The bracket on the story is, of course, that the ELCA was required to begin installing all its bishops into the Historic Episcopate as a consequence of the final full-communion agreement with the Episcopal Church (conferred by the participation of Anglican bishops , bishops from national Lutheran bodies where the Episcopate was never broken, or bishops within the ELCA who had previously been installed in this manner). All new ELCA pastors then ordained would also be part of the Episcopate, with the exception of a small handful that have been ordained under a conscience-clause that was added to the Agreement in order to secure passage by the ELCA assembly. Six years later, I believe a majority of the current ELCA bishops have been installed (or, as we would say, ordained/consecrated) into the Historic Episcopate, with all but a negligible number of new pastors having received Episcopal ordination.
For all of the problems that faced both the Episcopal Church and the ELCA in the mid- and late-1990s, I think most folks in both denominations (save for a very vocal minority within the ELCA) would have to say that the ultimate adoption of Called to Common Mission has been a gift to both communities: a rare, genuine ecumenical partnership that wrestled seriously with the theological implications of closer unity.
Personally, I am more skeptical of common ground with the UMC — particularly around the traditional, orthodox view of the sacraments held by most within the ELCA and TEC — but I would be delighted to be surprised.
“…with all but a negligible number of new pastors having received Episcopal ordination”.
I didn’t realize that. So the ELCA will disappear and be absorbed into TEC? Maybe that’s why 815 isn’t worried about declines in membership and ASA? They look forward to consuming ELCA?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
If there’s one church body Anglicans ought to try to work things out with, it’s the Methodists. It’s a tragedy of history that we were separated. These agreements can be positive in the sense that many Episcopalians have put far too much emphasis on apostolic succession apart from apostolic teaching when the prior was meant to guarantee the continuation of the latter–and without apostolic teaching, apostolic succession becomes nothing more than an empty idol that leads to death, giving the appearance of continuity while the truth is nowhere to be found.
As for the UMC, they have several things going for them that TEC has not had the benefit of. First and foremost, they have judiciary body that enforces their Book of Discipline and they don’t expect their Bishops to be the only judicial body and police themselves. Additionally, the UMC is an international church body, and as they admit more and more churches from other parts of the world who then send representatives to their General Conference, the margin in favor of orthodoxy is widening. Also, they have some of the same dynamics in the US that the Episcopal Church has had, in that their growing churches/regions are generally conservative while the dying ones are generally more liberal.
No. 8 – Isn’t the prime reason for deeping Apostolic Succession the integrity of the Sacraments (other than baptism)? You can have apostolic teaching without, although that is a reason, instrumentally speaking, for keeping. Tactile succession, with proper catholic intention, is paramount.
Correction – You can have apostolic succession without it” …..
I’ve been taught as a former Episcopalian and new Catholic that Apostolic Succession is to BOTH guarantee apostolic teaching, AND ensure efficacy of the eucharist and orders, with neither being paramount.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><