TMCP #88 / The Biblical Basis for the Episcopacy / With Fr. Harman Thomas
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 сен 2024
- merecatholics....
Website: jonahsaller.com/
/ jonahmsaller
Email: jonah@jonahsaller.com
PO Box 1204
Maricopa, AZ 85139-9900
-----------------------
Intro Music: Scott Anderson
I am newly minted Presbyterian, but am more convinced of an Episcopal Polity. One of the things I have taken away from this discussion is how weighty the Ecclesial offices are. I'm duly humbled in my aspiration toward the ministry.
Thanks for sharing! Maybe an additional discussion building on this one would be in order?
Fascinating. This brings to mind 2 Corinthians 2:10 where Paul explicitly says he forgives “in the person of Christ.” After all of the other 2 Corinthian passages mentioned about apostolic ministry, this seems to fit in clearly.
Thank you so much! It's fantastic to hear a brother Priest saying the very same things as I have been! God bless!
Coram Deo,
Rev. Dr. Mel McMinn ThD +
I've watched this video twice now. It's super helpful. Anyone have other resources they'd like to share on the topic of the episcopate? Readings or other videos would be great.
If, as an Anglican, you must trace all doctrine back to Scripture as the divine source, what about the canon?
It cant be traced back to Scripture. That seems to be a very convenient exception from Sola Scriptura.
As a former Anglican, now Presbyterian, I wanted to ask:
How do you find security in episcopal structures in light of the apostasy we see in quarters of, for example, TEC? Asking sincerely.
The ACNA is in communion with 80% if the Anglican tradition, you could add another 1-2% maybe for the Anglican Continuum Movement (APA, ACC etc) if you're just counting traditional Anglicans. And sure, the ACNA has the female ordination problem, but that will probably be settled eventually.
There was the arian controversy, and Christianity in the time of St. Benedict was largely backsliding or outright apostate.
In short, the episcopally governed Church has been through various times of apostasy. The current crises in both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are nothing new.
Personally I find security in any denomination by reading the lives of the saints. Sure, Christians all over the west are becoming apostate, but nobody has tried to poison the one's standing up for orthodoxy (yet). We like to pretend we have it rough, but many saints have been through much worse periods of Christendom.
If you accept the episcopacy, how do you handle the concept of schism which is extremely important to the Fathers, such as Ignatius?
I believe John 16:12-15 is specific to the apostles. To them, passed on to us one same Spirit.
Fantastic.
Question: It seems to me that as soon as one affirms the episcopacy as of the esse of the church, one *has* to have some interpretation/category/notion of validity and invalidity, does one not? In other words, if one says the episcopacy is *essential*, then those communions which do not possess an essential part (i.e. a Bishop) are in fact invalid *in some way*, no? Perhaps they are not "ontologically" invalid, but, from our episcopal perspective, do we not have to say that those communions are, to us, unrecognizable, invalid? In a sense, it seems we have to affirm an "epistemological" invalidity at the least, do we not?
As I said in the interview, I think keeping it in the realm of what brings assurance and what doesn't is most helpful. I can't comment on the validity of a Presbyterian church, but I can certainly point out that they lack the kind of sacramental assurance that one does in the visible communion of Christ's body.
@@merecatholicity I certainly sympathize with this articulation, but isn't saying "I can certainly point out that they lack the kind of sacramental assurance" simply a form of invalidity? The lack is the invalidity (i.e. not recognized, therefor void in a legal sense). I'm not trying purposefully to invalidate other communions, but it seems it me unavoidable to make some sort of claim about not recognizing another group, therefore deeming them invalid in some sense.
*seems to me
@@SuperBoomer34 I guess the language of "invalid," in my opinion, paints too black and white a picture of an area that is more gray. I don't really know how Christ works outside the visible institutional structures of the Church. I can see fruit that indicates that he does work there. I'm just not sure what terminology I would use to express that. I met Jesus while still an evangelical and was baptized in an EV Free church. I know that was real and true encounter with Christ. However, looking back, I would not see that church as being within the institutional structures that Christ established. What does that mean? I'm not sure, but I don't think invalid is the proper language.
@@merecatholicity I'm inclined to agree with you here: some Roman Catholics will refer to Anglicans as invalid in the sense of being "fake", or "frauds": fake priests doing fake masses. I completely think this conception of invalidity is so extreme and as you said so black and white. At the same time, it seems to me the notion of invalidity as not recognizable is impossible to avoid.
how do we know the bishops Ignatius was talking about were episcopalian? I read the bishops he was talking about like the bishops the new testament talks about aka pastors.
The same word is sometimes used, but the context demonstrates a clear difference in offices between mere presbyters and overseers.