On 10th February 2011, the Northern and Southern Provinces of the Moravian Church in the United States formally entered into a full communion agreement with The Episcopal Church.So they decided to ask Priest Michael to travel to the oldest of the elders of the Waldensiens and to receive from him anew the ordination as priest. They didn't know whether this Waldensien priest would be willing to do so, but if he did, they would consider it a confirmation from God. When Michael returned he would ordain Matthias as their bishop. And that is the way it happened. According to ecclesiastical law Michael admittedly had no power to do so. Only a bishop could exercise the right to ordain, the ius ordinis. But the brothers were of the opinion that according to biblical apostolic order there was no difference between the ordination of a priest and a bishop. The bishop was only differentiated by his duties. Thus Matthias was ordained as bishop among brothers. He then ordained Brother Elias and Brother Thomas as priests. Michael relieved himself of the office of priest and reverted to the status of brother.
What the historical essays demonstrate is that the Moravian Church originated in 1467 at the so-called Synod of Lhotka when some sixty individuals from the Utraquist Church of Bohemia—that more conservative, and by that date the dominant, section of the Hussite movement that accepted most traditional Catholic doctrine, but insisted on communion in two kinds, and that considered itself in communion with Rome, although Rome did not consider itself in communion with them—who wished to distance themselves further from Rome organized themselves into a 'church.' They drew lots to select three men to be their priests. Among the larger group was a Catholic priest; this Catholic priest was then (supposedly) consecrated a bishop by a visiting Waldensian elder, and went on to consecrate as bishop one of the three men selected by lots, who then ordained as priests the other two men so selected. Then the Catholic priest renounced his Catholic orders and was (re)ordained by the man whom he had himself consecrated a bishop—and then the whole lot were rebaptized by their new clergy (for some sixty years they received all converts by baptism, although they practiced infant baptism of their members’ offspring). As the author of the essay, the Anglican Dr. Colin Podmore, writes: 'The Waldensians did not possess the "apostolic succession" as traditionally understood, and, in any case, the Brethren rejected this and wanted nothing to do with it. In obtaining ordination from the Waldensian elder they neither intended to acquire the sign of the historic episcopate nor believed that they had done so.'
They did, however, retain the offices of bishop and priest, and soon revived that of deacon. However, in both 1500 and 1553 their episcopate died out, and new bishops had to be elected and consecrated by their priests, so that the 'episcopal succession' of the Moravian Church goes back only to 1553.
4 comments:
It is not surprising that these two church bodies would unite. There is a bit of a connection between Anglicans (not that TEC should be considered Anglican any longer) and Moravians. In 1735 John Wesley sailed for the Colony of Georgia and met Moravians who were traveling there also. Apparently he became very impressed with them. He returned to England very dejected but upon attending a Moravian meeting at Aldersgate Street in 1738 he became energized. Wesley agreed with the Moravians that a priest could ordain a bishop but apparently he did not think that they should exercise this authority.
Moravians do not possess apostolic succession but neither does TEC. Of course most will argue with me about this including most priests and bishops in the Continuing Church. I concur with the view of my brethren in the Eastern Orthodox Churches who state that "once a bishop lays hands on a woman (to ordain her) that she receives nothing and he is no longer a bishop." They state this because in their tradition once a bishop does anything to violate his ordinal vows he has excommunicated himself.
TEC has "formed" into a Unitarian Church with a liturgy.
Yet another scheme of unity that will fall flat on it's face...ugh!
Rob+
I watched the video of this service - the one with the Presiding Oceanographer and had the following questions which I sent to the local rector - no answer yet.
"If these Moravian Bishops are now in the Apostolic Succession and therefore competent to conduct Mass, are they in turn going to lay hands on their Moravian Pastors to make them likewise competent? If not, why would an Episcopalian feel free to communicate at their services?
Since there were only about a dozen Moravian Bishops there being “handed”, does this mean the Bishop of NC must go round and do likewise to the Moravian clergy in NC? Likewise all Bishops in their dioceses? If not, why would anyone consider the NC Moravians conduct of communion to be valid for NC Episcopalians? And vice-versa or course.
You see the problem – either all Moravians Bishops and Pastors are on equal footing with Episcopal Bishops and Priests or they are not…things must be in good order or the laity ends up confused – and ill-served I might add.
That’s the problem when one goes about fooling around with orders: what is oft-times created is a spiritual and supernatural desert in which the unsuspecting parish has no valid masses, no valid absolutions, no valid ordinations/confirmations. I know baptisms are valid by anyone, but I’m making a point here. (Speaking of invalid, neither Her Grace or the Moravian Bishop laid hands on all the elements during the institution)."
(I’m friends with the local rector though I no longer attend services – I don’t use the 1979 prayer book)
Fr. Coady,
I do not understand how you can claim that a TEC Bishop loses his Sacramental character, his indelible mark of the Holy Spirit received at his valid ordination simply because he, what some might call, pretends to ordain a woman.
It has always been my understanding that one can never remove this mark on one's soul. The Bishop is simply a vessel and a player to act as Christ in the sacramental acts.
One can argue that the attempted action taken to ordain a woman was defective and invalid, but I can not see how this removes that which the Holy Spirit has placed.
I would like to reference "Donatism: Named for its leader, the theologian Donatus the Great (d. 355), Donatism included a group of extremist sects, mostly in North Africa, that emphasized asceticism. They valued martyrdom, found lapses of faith (even under torture or threat of death) inexcusable, and believed that the sacraments required a pure priest to be effective."
Is this belief that the Bishop fails to retain his Sacramental ability not the Heresy of Donatism?
Respectfully, Fernando
Post a Comment