Diocese of Sydney

Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by Celtic1, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. Scottish Knight

    Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    569
    Country:
    Scotland
    Religion:
    Christian

    it boils down to whether you see the clergy as coming from the levitical priesthood or as coming from a rabbinical synagogue tradition.
    Scripturally new testament church leaders are never called priests. The Scottish Episcopal church uses the word "presbyter" instead in their prayer books which is a more biblical word. Also in James 2:2 the writer says "For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly..." In the original language the word used is "synagogue". There is no idea of the church being a temple or of the need for priests.

    Could you explain a bit more about how ministers are priests "that offers the sacrifice of praise...for everyone in his congregation"?

    When Hebrews 13:15 uses this language it stresses "let us continually offer to God our sacrifice of praise..."` us would indicate the whole congregation.

    If the priest really does offer up the sacrifice of praise for his congregants, are they just sitting passively in their pews? Or if they are praising God in their hearts why does the priest need to do it on their behalf? Surely he would be functioning as a leader, leading the congregation but not mediating in any way if the congregation was also joinign in (and if you believe that a minister offers praise to God on behlf of his congregation then you believe in another mediator between God and man).

    I'd like to see any biblical evidence that bishops and presbyters are a continuation of the levitical priesthood. From my examination The church officers function more like rabbis who had no priestly role but were leaders in authority
     
    Dave and Celtic1 like this.
  2. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    DK, I agree with you on all the points except this one. "Ecclesia" comes from "Kahal", which means the gathering or assembly of the people (of God). We are members of the holy Church by faith & baptism. To call the Hierarchy/Clergy alone "the Church" is ghastly theology. We are all in Christ: one Body. :)

    SK, you might as well say there's no "Holy Trinity" in the Scriptures. There is no absolute distinction between "priest" & "presbyter", anyway. The former comes from the latter via the corruption "Prester". I myself prefer "presbyter", due to bad associations.

    A good point. Each of our bodies is a temple of the Holy Ghost. We still must have zeal for coming together in worship.

    It is merely a thing of good order. I should rather have said that he offers their sacrifice of praise as a single voice, speaking for all who are gathered together. Those who are called to the ministry do this. Not everyone is called thereto, right? Notice that in the Epistle of James, it is instructed for the elders to come to a sick man and lay hands upon him, and he shall be healed. Only the elders are called to do this. There seems to be something special or set-apart about them.

    Nothing wrong with one person taking up and representing all of those before God, as a symbol of Christ, and as a way of good order.

    Well, insofar as those points are valid: try out having no single "human mediator" to lead worship. It's chaos, and not reverent toward God or edifying toward our brethren. I don't really see any point in this insistence upon the liberty of the laypeople. Most people just want to come in, sit down, hear a sermon pray, receive communion, and go home. In my experience almost no one even wants to read the Word aloud, let alone preach on it. Since so few actually care to do it, why not just ordain those few?

    They are certainly not a continuation or renewal of that priesthood. One who "oversees" and one who is a "presbyter" do not sacrifice or present first-fruits offerings. That would be derogatory toward our One Mediator.
     
  3. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Yours is a good and reasonable post, and I don't disagree with it. I also don't disagree with the sacramental function of priests and pastors. I simply see no Biblical grounds for restricting the administration/consecration of the sacraments to priests/pastors, or ordained clergy.
     
  4. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    That is not the case. My Communion allows for "lay presidency", but that does not eliminate bishops, priests, and deacons, all of which we have and all of which exercise a sacramental function. We simply recognize that the laity has the same rights as the ordained, and based on our view of the priesthood of all believers, we do not restrict administration/consecration of the sacraments to the clergy since we don't hold that these need to be mediated to and for us by a special clergy class.
     
    Scottish Knight likes this.
  5. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian

    All of your suppositions are absolutely false. And apparently you do not hold to the Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Lay presidency does not make any of your ten points valid or true.

    Man-made vain traditions. LOL
     
    Toma likes this.
  6. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    The Quakers had an interesting way of viewing things, in many areas. They had officers -- elders and overseers -- but no ordained clergy as other denominations had, although they had "recorded ministers" -- those who were recognized as having a gift for preaching. They were charged with eliminating the clergy; they said rather that they eliminated the laity, holding that all believers were ordained of God to ministry.

    Just a little history about a fascinating group of Christians.
     
  7. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    371
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    So once again we throw out the 39 articles, or just add a few to the list of ones you object to?

    Jeff
     
    MatthewOlson likes this.
  8. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    With all due respect, lay administration makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, from an Anglican perspective, if for no other reason that Anglicans at no time and under no circumstances had ever allowed lay presidency.

    As Richard Hooker teaches us, ordination effects a metaphysical alteration in the ordinand, which is absent in lay people.


    Priesthood of all believers refers to the fact that we can all pray to God. However Christ ordained the Church to preside over our sacraments.

    Christ does not say to all Christians "feed one another". But he says, "feed my sheep", a hierarchical top-down order. And he gives it only to the Apostles.


    Called heretics.
     
    MatthewOlson, Jeff F and Toma like this.
  9. Dave

    Dave Active Member

    Posts:
    103
    Likes Received:
    94
    Country:
    Texas
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Hooker would not have the sacerdotal priesthood or for that matter have "priests" since there is no sacrifice -- he'd have presbyters.
     
    The Hackney Hub and Celtic1 like this.
  10. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    What in the world are you talking about? Where did I say or even imply such?
     
  11. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    Exactly, to claim that priests have any "metaphysical" change is so far removed from Anglicanism proper.
     
    Celtic1 likes this.
  12. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Presbyter -> Prester -> Priest. We only put negative connotations on the P-word because of papist practice.

    Interestingly, ordination to the priesthood is not believed to affect the metaphysical nature or ontological reality of a person in the Greek & Slavic churches. They teach that one is a priest or bishop only insofar as their Church allows. Clergy who have been defrocked by the "Orthodox" not only lose their ministry, but the priesthood & episcopate itself. There is no "character" imparted, but only temporarily gifted.

    I wonder where Hooker supposedly teaches the eternal infusion of Orders into a man.
     
    Celtic1 and The Hackney Hub like this.
  13. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Note that I didn't mention the term "sacerdotal priesthood". That term is so ill-defined, and so overgrown with Roman associations, that it is useless to bring it into this discussion.

    See here:

    http://forums.anglican.net/threads/richard-hooker-on-church-orders-and-lay-presidency.672/
     
    Toma likes this.
  14. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    371
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    In post #24 you were defending lay presidency and attempting to refute Dark Knight's objections by claiming the "Priesthood of all believers. How do you attempt to reconcile this with the 23rd article?

    "IT is not lawful for any man to take upon him the Office of publick Preaching, or Ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully Called and sent to execute the same:"
     
    Stalwart likes this.
  15. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian

    How do you suppose the Sydney Anglicans reconcile it?
     
  16. Scottish Knight

    Scottish Knight Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    569
    Country:
    Scotland
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ok thanks for clarifying, I misunderstood you. I don't have an issue with what you've written. I do understand that priest was retained for this very reason in the church of England, however for centuries it has had a different meaning, and today webster's dictionary defines it as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God". it was this reason that puritans criticised the retention since it causes confusion. Seeing the rise of a belief within anglican churches of a mediatoral priesthood, I think the puritans were wise in their objections. Interestingly Sydney has brought back the use of the term presbyter, at least according to wikipedia.

    I'd disagree that leading worship is a mediatoral act. I think you're absolutely right about the need for order and leaders in church organising, maintaining discipline etc, however its a big difference between a minister representing the people before God and leading the congregation together before God, I hope this makes sense.
     
    Dave likes this.
  17. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    371
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer
    Apparently they chose to ignore history, tradition, and the entirety of the Anglican Communion. As with scripture, the articles don't need to be tweaked or re-interpreted, just obeyed.

    Jeff
     
  18. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    And since scripture is primary, they need to be obeyed first and foremost, and apparently Sydney Anglicans believe that and are trying to do that instead of making the Catholic mistake of making tradition equal to or even above scripture.

    Oh, btw, tell me any party within Anglicanism that follows the articles completely. Why, the Anglo-Catholic party is certain they see only views consistent with Roman Catholicism, the Reformed party sees views consistent with only Calvinism, etc.
     
  19. Jeff F

    Jeff F Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    377
    Likes Received:
    371
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Conservative Believer

    So where do you actually stand? You've commented that you've been in the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, and now an Old Catholic off shoot. Your theology is all over the board, sometimes siding with the Anglicans, other times you appear to be a 5 star Calvinist. You seem to reject anything that smells of long standing tradition, yet you align through the back door of the AMiA. I am curious why you chose to participate in what you had to have known was a conservative Anglican board. Just honest questions my friend.

    Jeff
     
    The Hackney Hub likes this.
  20. Celtic1

    Celtic1 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    836
    Likes Received:
    419
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Celtic Christian
    Let me make this statement, and then I'll try to answer you: I find it amazing that on an Anglican forum the opinions of theologians, councils, the articles, tradition, and other secondary sources are given equal authority with scripture and even elevated above scripture. Obviously those proclaiming the loudest to stand for Anglicanism and decrying the loudest all whom they oppose need to remember the Anglican position on the authority of scripture.

    Now, even though in various other places I have delineated some of my background and views, I'll try to summarize here in a way that won't turn into a tome. :)

    First of all, let me say that the theological "systems" that I am most opposed to are Roman Ctholicism and Calvinism. I disavow all five "petals" of the Calvinist flower, "TULIP".

    My views are a combination of Baptist, Quaker, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican, if I had to "denominationalize" them! :) I don't really fit in neatly anywhere. As I mentioned before, I was banned from a fundie Baptist forum for what they deemed to be heresy on the inerrancy of scripture and hell. One moderator said I was Anglican and shouldn't be there! Now, on this forum I am told I am not Anglican and shouldn't be here. I am used to such. I make people uncomfortable who like to put people in theological and denominational "boxes". They don't know what to do with me.

    The independent Old Catholic denomination examined my beliefs and accepted me, and so did the AMiA. Simply put, that's why I am with them. Plus, I love liturgical worship. Believe it or not, the "Charleston tradition" Baptists and some of the moderate Baptist churches have liturgical worship, but none around here.

    Let me edit my post once more to comemnt on this: You said I "align through the back door of the AMiA." That seems rather an insult.
     
    Lowly Layman likes this.