Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cms@dragon.uucp Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Ordination in general Message-ID: Date: 16 Aug 90 16:26:07 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited Lines: 82 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes: > In article bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >>...We don't ordain >>women simply because we don't "ordain" anyone, being instead entirely >>lay-led (which renders moot any attempt at a clergy/laity distinction, >>so "lay-led" is a misnomer for us anyway). Yes, we have elders and >>deacons, but they aren't regarded as clergy. > > Despite being an Episcopialian, I tend very much to the opinion that ordination > is not particularly mandated by Christ. (one advantage to being an Anglican > - they won't throw me out for disagreeing with the Church :-) > > Christ bapitised. And baptism is the sole requirement for membership in the > Christian faith. And all of us are called to preach and witness. So I see > no extra role to be filled by the priest. Also the word is never applied to > Christians in the new Testament. Bishop is, however. I think when it says Christ baptized, what it means is his disciples baptized in his name. While baptism is required for membership in the Christian faith, in the Episcopal Church baptism is "appropriate administered within the Eucharist as the chief service on a Sunday or other feast" (BCP p. 298). Furthermore, while any baptized Christian may baptize (the BCP gives directions for this pp. 312-314), I maintain that an ordained priest is necessary for celebration of the Eucharist, which is central to the Christian faith. Also, I think "deacon" is used to refer to what is roughly equivalent to parish priest today. Presbyter and bishop had different "tonal qualities," for lack of a better phrase. Discussion on the meaning of the three-fold ministry welcome. At any rate, the BCP also declares that, after an emergency baptism by a lay person, the Church needs to be an informed and a proper public celebration should take place, with the baptized person participating in the complete ceremony with the exception of the administration of the water. Also, I think to hear a Confession, a priest needs to be trained in the rite. He needs to be trained in the sanctity of the rite, the secrecy that is so essential. My priest told me that, in seminary Confession Class (or whatever it was called), they were given hypotheticals such as, "I've planted a bomb, I'm going to kill X tomorrow," etc. what do you do? Silence is paramount. It takes a special kind of person to hear a Confession and I think it is a sacrament properly reserved to an ordained priest. > This is essentially an extreme Protestant position, isn't it? Luther either > said or was accused of saying 'every man a priest'. I tend to agree with this position while simultaneously supporting the ordained priesthood. > I think the greatest extreme is found in the Society of Friends (Quakers) who > have - in my understanding - no formal destinctions such as elders. I've read that Quakers do not recognize any Sacraments at all; true? > I have a little book from SPCK called 'Priest or President' which presents the > case for a liberalisation of who may consecrate and administer the sacrements. I think that lay eucharistic ministers do a fine job. However, as for a lay person celebrating the Eucharist, I have reservations. First, there's the question of the Apostolic succession, but let's go past that. What if there is no priest available in, say, a rural area? Can a lay person be temporarily designated (and trained) to celebrate the Eucharist in the absence of a priest? I don't imagine that happening anytime soon. It's only recently that lay people were allowed to distribute the Body of Christ, after all. The Cup has been a lay option for some time. This is a strange question, but one never knows the strange situations that can crop up in Christendom. Suppose there is a remote mountainous area (there are several in the US), who require mail to be dropped from airplanes, they're so remote. Is it possible to celebrate the Eucharist via telephone? In other words, a lay person has the bread in front of him, and the Cup, and the priest consecrates the bread and wine long distance. Now, when blessing holy water, the priest is required to touch the water, but when consecrating the bread and wine, he doesn't actually touch the wine. Thus, one may conclude that "long-distance consecration" is possible under certain circumstances. Comments from actual priests are welcome here. > Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms