What does God think of the way we conduct our sacramental ministry? Does God approve of the ordaining of women? Answer: we do not know what God thinks about the way we do things in respect of the sacraments and of ordination.
What we do reflects our human attempts to best understand the meaning and implications of Scripture, including the few remarks and reports we have about the eucharist and about ministry. Even when we build that understanding on what we have received through tradition, we are building on human developments of Christ and the apostles' ministries.
To say that this eucharistic occasion or that ordination is "valid" is to make a judgement concerning our understanding of these things, believing earnestly that God is also pleased with what has been done. As is being pointed out in the sequence of comments in the earlier post, some judge "validity" in different ways. We Anglicans think our eucharists and ordinations are valid, not only as an "Anglican" judgment, but also viewed against the back story of undivided, and then Western and Eastern Christianity. Romans and Eastern Orthodox differ. And we differ amongst ourselves as to whether (say) a woman ordained is validly ordained, or whether a eucharist is valid when conducted in a particularly Protestant way (including, let us say, employing words at the "epiclesis" which suit Protestant sensibilities so no actual invocation of the Spirit upon the elements occurs).
But what God thinks about these questions of "validity", we do not know.
I’m a little intrigued, Peter, for you to unpack your reasoning further. Why, for example, do we know (if you think we do) what God thinks of the way we choose certain scrolls over others in the way we read and make decisions? And how does this choice of some scrolls over others differ from our choice of some ways of ordering ministry over others? And why do you focus on the epiclesis when, for the vast majority of our Western tradition (out of which the “Protestant way” you focus on comes) there has been no epiclesis whatsoever – without any question of “validity” (at least within the West).
ReplyDeleteBlessings
Bosco
Hi Bosco,
ReplyDeleteWe do not necessarily know what God thinks of choosing certain scrolls over other scrolls, but the binding of the church through the centuries to the canon of Scripture (all agree on a minimum canon of Hebrew OT and Greek NT, some do not agree to a maximal canon of Greek OT and Greek NT) is very tight, and is generally bound up with some notion of the 'authority of Scripture', against which we measure our understanding of doctrine (with variation on whether tradition and reason also contributes).
If we do not know whether God accords with our perception of God's Spirit at work in the writing and collating of the documents accepted as Holy Scripture, then we know even less about 'validity.'
My example re 'epiclesis' may have been poorly chosen, read against the whole history of 'validity' in the East and the West, but I still think it serves a point: within Anglican churches currently there is variation as to what constitutes a 'valid' eucharist.
"And how does this choice of some scrolls over others differ from our choice of some ways of ordering ministry over others?"
ReplyDeleteTo know the boundaries of the canon of Scripture is not the same as knowing for definite what Scripture means. And I don't know that any OT apocryphal/deuterocanonical books are ever prayed in aid in discussions about the ministry and sacraments. You might have a stronger case if you start preaching from the Didache or the Epistle of Barnabas. Now that would be interesting ....
Al M.
Dear Peter,
ReplyDeleteIs it true that "all agree on a minimum canon of Hebrew OT and Greek NT" - what about the Syriac Churches and the Peshitta? Likewise, who decides that the minimal Canon is enough? You are not just trying to get out of prayer for the departed, now, are you?
Carl [at 5.06PM in Vienna, not 3.06AM in Dunedin]
Hi Carl,
ReplyDeleteOK, my knowledge of the smallest and furtherest away of churches is sketchy so my 'all' should be 'nearly all'!
As an Anglican I am happy with the decision my forbears in the English Reformation decided was 'enough'.
Further, I am happy that the 39A permit decision making which has led to women bishops.
As for trying to get out of praying for the departed, I see no need to do that as I have never gotten into praying for them :)
But I am happy to pray for your recuperation in Vienna!
XXII. Of Purgatory.
ReplyDeleteTHE Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory...is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.
That said, 1-2 Maccabees tells a rattling good story, and so do Tobit and Judith.
Carl - Prost und zum Wohl! (raises Toby tankard)
Al M.
"To know the boundaries of the canon of Scripture is not the same as knowing for definite what Scripture means."
ReplyDeleteLiturgy's question was about the former, Al M, but if you distract people with the latter, no one will notice.
Will they?
Alison
Dear Peter and Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your prayers and kind wishes,they are much appreciated - but you are not getting out of it as easily as that! I cannot believe that "feeling comfortable" is a sure guide to the bounds of scripture. And as for purgatory - O heavens forfend! I am no papalist as God is my witness. But Gregory of Nyssa's epektasis - now that's another matter!
Carl.
Hi Carl,
ReplyDeleteIf you know about epektasis then you would (I should have thought) recognise that when I said "As an Anglican I am happy with the decision my forbears in the English Reformation decided was 'enough'" I was not using 'feeling' to determine the bounds of Scripture, but the sound arguments of our learned ancestors in the Reformed faith which - do I need to remind you? - is as much a part of being Anglican as is our heritage from the Eastern and Western flanks of the undivided church!
(I guess Vienna is right on the boundary of those flanks! But I digress ...)
Those arguments are Christ centred: if Christ spoke from the Hebrew canon of Scripture then that is a good guide to the Jewish Scriptures we count as our own. Sure there is a fair and proper question, raised and continually kept alive by the Eastern Orthodox, that the Greek Old Testament should be in our canon as source of doctrine. But the fact is that this has been considered on its merits, and found wanting.
One part of that wanting is the vain search in the New Testament for any Christian validation of praying for the departed.
Our opportunity to choose for Christ and his kingdom is in this life, and the moral testing ground on which epektasis takes place is this side of the gate of glory.
It is not vain thing, I hope, to be ambitious for the virtue of being a mere Anglican, without Roman and Eastern accoutrements :)
I don't understand the import of Alison's question. My point was that even if we accepted the OT Apocrypha as Scripture, it wouldn't make any difference to our understanding of Christian ministry, which is (or should be) derived from the NT - and east and west are agreed on the canon of the NT.
ReplyDeleteThe NT ministry is not an organic continuation of the Aaronic or Levitical priesthoods.
Roger Beckwith's little book 'elders in Every City' has never been satisfactorily engaged with.
I understand the Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine of the sacrificing priesthood pretty well, and this is not what the Anglican formularies affirm.
Al M.
I will have to accept, Al, that you do not understand the question, rather than are avoiding it. The post included looking at what makes one particular form of Christian leadership “valid” in possible contrast to another. The question was put in a parallel form, what makes a particular scroll “valid” in possible contrast to another? Peter responded by relying on the decision of his forebears in the English Reformation to determine which scrolls he will understand as inspired and which he will not. It seemed a particularly subjective response for such a significant decision for one who makes so much of the scriptures. But, translating that to orders, in his approach logically he would similarly rely on the decision of his forbears in the English Reformation in his understanding of leadership. This means, for example, ruling Brethren Eucharists as invalid.
ReplyDeleteAlison
Actually, I fancied Peter’s choice of the epiclesis was rather spot on!
ReplyDeleteOriginally, the threefold form of the Great Thanksgiving Prayer had as much to do with settling matters Trinitarian as the likes of Nicaea and Constantinople, 325 & 381 respectively; indeed, as Bosco will well know, the tag, lex orandi, lex credendi, once had real ... validity. Alas; no more: too much ... ‘diversity’!
That said, re women in the two orders of priest and bishop. It is wise to be aware of Rome’s actual position: namely, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, where John Paul II claims the Church actually cannot ordain women - not will not. This raises the bar from questions re the “valid” or “licit” to the ontological. There’s little room to manouevre once one party has moved to such a position. Which logic has also been applied to a number of contentious issues down the centuries. Now; what ‘He Who Is’ thinks of such claims, I have of course my own views. But what they are surely is not possible to express on any blogging medium! Wine and cheese/beer and spud anyone?!
Spud?
ReplyDeleteAlison, I have read your reply 3+ times and am still slow to understand what you are saying. The English Reformers simply followed Jerome on the (Hebrew) Canon of the OT; but even if they had followed Rome, I don't know how that would have changed things, as the NT canon is the same; and that's where our understanding of leadership is based. ('valid' isn't quite the right word to use of the foundational Scriptures in any case, whereas, e.g. 'valid translation [of the Scriptures]' might be.)
ReplyDeleteTo rephrase my question: are Brethren, Presbyterians, Anglicans etc doing the same as the Lord commanded (touto poeite etc) and the apostles did? That's the only question that matters to me.
Al M.
Hi Al and Alison and others,
ReplyDeleteI have posted a comment which might move the discussion forward a bit ...
Thanks, Peter - food and drink for thought!
ReplyDeleteAl M.
Dear Peter, I must apologise if I appeared contemptuous of the Anglican Reformation. That was certainly not my intention, though I clearly expressed myself with too little of the appropriate humility, I'm afraid. I would wish to affirm with Hooker and Co. that nothing may be taught as essential for salvation which is not based on Scripture. But just to make things more difficult, I neither believe scripture to be inerrant, nor do I believe it to be the only essential component of the Church's life. Thus I note that the three-fold ministry (including the maleness thereof) has an even longer history of being understood to be essential than some of the books of the New Testament. To me, this has as much likelihood of divine inspiration as the formation of the canon. And it is this history (which perhaps resembles "the binding of the Church" of which you speak) which I find to be such powerful evidence of God's will for his Church in these matters.
ReplyDeleteHi Carl,
ReplyDeleteYou write beautifully, and the argument for maleness of ministry as expressed by you has great strength, and dare I say it, a certain persuasive attractiveness.
In the end I think the weakness of the argument lies in three matters: (1) precisely on its reliance on great longevity ("an even longer history of being understood to be essential than some of the books of the New Testament") (2) its presumption about "essential", and (3) its uncertainty that it is a matter of divine inspiration ("To me, this has as much likelihood of divine inspiration as"). I offer my responses not to be controversial against your position, nor to imply I think you might change your mind with a bit more truth (!!), but to underscore the point that I think one can be a 'traditional Anglican' and support women priests and bishops.
Briefly, the great insight of the Reformers (but not only of them) is that mere length of presence in the life of the church is not a guarantor of truth; maleness being the essence of ordained ministry had a social context in which women were understood differently to our day, as well as a social context in which 'female priestesses' played a role which the church understandably sought to distinguish itself from: in sum, it is not of the absolute, timeless essence of ministry that it be male; and, thirdly, it may be a matter of inspiration, but it is hard to tell, because our knowledge of life in the first century church, apart from the New Testament, is very sketchy.
"Thus I note that the three-fold ministry (including the maleness thereof) has an even longer history of being understood to be essential than some of the books of the New Testament. To me, this has as much likelihood of divine inspiration as the formation of the canon."
ReplyDeleteThat Christian church leaders in the early centuries were male can't be reasonably contested, and trying to build a huge edifice on Junia smacks of the Dan Brown school of historiography. But I can't find the 'threefold ministry' in the Pauline epistles or Acts except by ex post facto retrojection. You might as well follow medieval explanations for vestments.
If you reject the inerrancy of Scripture (as liberal Anglican Catholic Gabriel Hebert famously did in the 1950s), then you need to look elsewhere for the certain voice of the Holy Spirit. Wasn't that Newman's dilemma?
Al M.
To be fair to Newman, Al, he never had the opportunity to read Anglican Down Under :)
ReplyDeleteAl, with the ultimate authority for you for determining the canon being Jerome and Rome, I see no reason for you to suddenly switch ultimate authority, then, when it comes to orders. Both Jerome and Rome accept Carl’s threefold order. That there is a completely different question which is the only one that matters to you does not matter to me.
ReplyDeleteAlison
Peter: maybe not Newman, though perhaps he knew Selwyn, and probably this other eminent Victorian, who prophesied:
ReplyDelete''And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's.''
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1840) Essay, On Ranck's ''History of the Popes"
Al M.
Alison writes:
ReplyDelete"Al, with the ultimate authority for you for determining the canon being Jerome and Rome..."
Not true. Jerome differed from what became (centuries later, at Trent) the Roman canon of the OT, as well as in his preference for the Hebrew text over LXX, and the Anglican Reformers agreed with him on this; which is not to agree with everything Jerome believed or taught. Roger Beckwith (in 'The OT Canon of the NT Church, OUP 1985)argues that this (Hebrew) canon was actually apostolic tradition.
Al M.
Hi Al,
ReplyDeleteI am expecting to see those ruins of St Paul's any time now ... having learnt that She Who Must Be Obeyed has preached there this Sunday past :)