ryan and ryan have really helped me to clarify my muddled thoughts some, as has reading on being a bishop.
one of the great steps forward (backwards) the episcopal church in the united states has taken in its last prayer book revision was a return to the earliest known sources describing episcopal ministry, rather than to repeat the argumentative sort of words from the heat of the reformation. although there have been some words spoken within the anglican communion lately which are hard to describe as entirely charitable, at least no one has been burned at stake lately that i know of.
what i am suggesting is simply to take that direction further. ryan knight suggested what i am saying seems like part of the independent catholic/apostolic movement, and it is; but again, taking it further. i mean, think of it: "independent" catholic church--an oxymoron. of course what is meant is independent of papalism and empire. the episcopal church, although it recognizes that a big change in the role of the bishop, from the local expression of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, to an administrative supervisor of a diocese, took place in ryan blackwell's bad-tasting fourth century, still clings to dioscenal bishops, with the difficult-theologically addition of suffragans and assistants. so, why not go behind constantine to ignatius and hippolytus and iranaeus and cyprian, indeed to paul and timothy and jesus and the disciples gathered in the upper room after the resurrection. (you might look, ryan b., at 1 timothy 3"1-7. titus 1:7-0, acts 20, i peter 5, or even to the gospel according to john, 20:19-23) for ordination in the new testament.)
you see, ryan knight, i am in no way condemning ordination within the episcopal church u.s.a. as i have suggested privately to you and to many others, i find it as clear an expression of the orthodox church as we have in english. i am simply noticing that its origins remain entangled with the arguments of the reformation which seem to me to be severe limitations to the work of evangelism, of reconciliation, today.
10 hours ago
2 comments:
your scripture citations correspond pretty well with those of nedi's. in response to ryan b's last post, the episcopal church acknowledges in the prayerbook the priesthood of all the baptized and is trying to manifest itself in an encouragement to all peoples, laity and clergy, to discern their call in the world. it does this while making the argument that there are people called to serve in particular sacramental duties within the church ie ordained priests.
there is an important distinction between the priesthood of all the baptized and the priesthood of those we call "priests:" they are different words in greek, for which we have only one word in english, sort of. the "priesthood of all believers"--which is all believers, not each believer--is sacerdos, the sacrificial priest. the priesthood to which one is ordained is presbyteros, elder, which in english, in the way that worchestershire became wooster, became priest. it is the confusion of these two titles which generates some of the antagonisms between "catholics" and "protestants."
then to make matters more confusing of course there are "episcopos"--overseers, or bishops, which presbyterians say are no different from presbyters and catholics--in the sense of roman catholics and orthodox and anglicans--say are different offices.
i have a feeling that if these offices had never come to be invested with such pomp and ceremony the arguments about them would have taken on an entirely different tenor.
Post a Comment