tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post6460317614045471565..comments2024-03-29T09:20:16.581-05:00Comments on Pastoral Meanderings: For you and with you...Pastor Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-85714122128231067822013-09-24T21:10:54.585-05:002013-09-24T21:10:54.585-05:00You are entitled to your opinion, Dr Strickert, an...You are entitled to your opinion, Dr Strickert, and so was Dr Walther. But Dr Walther's theses are not part of the confessional basis of our Church body. No member clergy, and no member congregations, of the LCMS make a confessional subscription to any writings of Dr Walther.<br /><br /><i>only by human (synodical) ordinance, not divine institution</i><br /><br />I beg to differ: 2 Tim 1.6.<br />Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03220498656377282715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-39656993270282630372013-09-24T20:44:49.044-05:002013-09-24T20:44:49.044-05:00"Apart from that process -- including ordinat...<i>"Apart from that process -- including ordination -- no man may serve as pastor in our Churches."</i><br /><br />But only by human (synodical) ordinance, not divine institution. And that official position of ordination is stated in Walther's Thesis VI, on the Ministry.Carl Vehsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348831096001668813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-91276995534823931762013-09-23T11:19:56.606-05:002013-09-23T11:19:56.606-05:00To be clear on the point I was trying to make with...To be clear on the point I was trying to make with Dr Strickert:<br /><br />Melanchthon is right that ordination by neighboring bishops served as a confirmation of the local Church's election. However, that does not mean that a man elected by a local Church but <i><b>not</b></i> confirmed by the neighboring bishops is nevertheless a "rightly called" pastor and may serve anyway. He is not; and I do not think Melanchthon was trying to claim otherwise.<br /><br />Even today in the Missouri Synod, confirmation by the wider Church is necessary before a man called by a local congregation may serve as pastor. For us it takes the form of seminary education, confessional subscription, and placement on the Synodical clergy roster. And the capstone of that process is ordination by the pastors of several neighboring Churches. Apart from that process -- including ordination -- no man may serve as pastor in our Churches.Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03220498656377282715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-71111458135699980772013-09-23T11:08:59.692-05:002013-09-23T11:08:59.692-05:00Not everything in the Confessions is of equal valu...Not everything in the Confessions is of equal value, nor to be treated in the same way. What is clearly intended as a dogmatic statement (e.g. "We believe, teach, and confess ...") is of dogmatic authority in the Lutheran Church; but what is included as argument intended to persuade, as explanation, or as information in support of the dogmatic statements, is of value only to the extent that it is helpful or persuasive. Certainly historical "evidence" that is not historically true has no dogmatic standing in the Lutheran Church, just because it is found in the Confessions.<br /><br />I'm not clear as to exactly what it is in Dr Strickert's quote that you find to be a "howler." Is it not true that in the earliest times local Churches elected their own bishops? And is it not true that the one elected was ordained by the neighbouring bishops (i.e. the bishops of the regional synod to which the local Church belonged, presided over by the Metropolitan)? Or is it the notion that this ordination was <i>nothing more than</i> a ratification of the local Church's election that you object to? If the latter, then your objection is of a theological character, not an historical one. The historical fact of the ordination of bishops by the bishops of the region is, I think, well-established. The interpretation that sees that as nothing more than a ratification is problematic, I agree. But it is a theological disagreement, not an historical howler.<br /><br />To Dr Strickert I would say that the words of Melanchthon in the <i>Treatise</i> prove rather less than he is making of them. There is no conflict between what Melanchthon wrote, and regarding ordination as having a sacramental character. Certainly even when the local Church elected her own bishop, the neighboring bishops vetted the man elected to ensure that he was orthodox in faith and practice, and otherwise fit for the office. To the extent that their role was to "confirm" the election, that "confirmation" was anything but a rubber stamp, but a critical mechanism for excluding false teachers from the sacred ministry. The fact that ordination by neighboring bishops served as a confirmation or ratification of the new bishop's election doesn't mean that this ratification was unnecessary or meaningless, and it does not mean that the rite of ordination by which that ratification was signified had no sacramental character.<br /><br />The point of this passage is to defend Lutheran presbyteral ordination, versus episcopal ordination; whether or not ordination is a sacrament is not at issue in this part of the <i>Treatise</i>. So the <i>nisi talis comprobatio</i> was not meant to exclude sacramental ordination; it is meant to exclude the necessity of ordination by a bishop rather than a presbyter. The <i>nisi talis comprobatio</i> is not saying "it's only a ratification, not a sacrament"; it's saying "the neighboring bishops aren't choosing the new bishop (the local Church does that), they are confirming the orthodoxy of the man chosen." Melanchthon (in this passage, at least) is not saying anything one way or the other about whether ordination is a sacrament.Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03220498656377282715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-15112358890766990232013-09-23T08:41:51.708-05:002013-09-23T08:41:51.708-05:00Regarding this:
"This was made clear by the ...Regarding this:<br /><br />"This was made clear by the writer himself in his Treatise, seven years later, when he stated (Tr.70): 'For formerly the people elected pastors and bishops. Then came a bishop, either of that church or a neighboring one, who confirmed tho one elected by the laying on of hands; and ordination was nothing else than such a ratification'."<br /><br />how is a Lutheran to respond (disclaimer: I am not a Lutheran) when a citation such as that quoted in the above-reproduced excerpt is adduced as "proof," when what it asserts is, and can be demonstrated to be, palpably false as an historical claim? That is to say, is it dogmatically true for Lutherans despite its historical status as a "howler" of the first rank?William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-18979563272149362722013-09-23T08:25:55.665-05:002013-09-23T08:25:55.665-05:00Fantastic quote from Augustine. Thanks.Fantastic quote from Augustine. Thanks.Rev. Joshua Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265502288700164812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-54036127795568983412013-09-23T07:05:25.356-05:002013-09-23T07:05:25.356-05:00The sacramental character of ordination (which the...<i>The sacramental character of ordination (which the Confessions themselves affirm (Article 13:12 of the Apology"</i><br /><br />Not really, except in a Loeheist's dreams. Ap.XIII.12 (along with an earlier double negative, "not unwilling," is written as a suppposition, not stated as an article of doctrine that ordination is actually a sacrament or has "sacramental character" This was made clear by the writer himself in his Treatise, seven years later, when he stated (Tr.70): "For formerly the people elected pastors and bishops. Then came a bishop, either of that church or a neighboring one, who confirmed tho one elected by the laying on of hands; and ordination was nothing else than such a ratification."Carl Vehsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00348831096001668813noreply@blogger.com