[Athanasius]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

No. There continues to be the charism that Christ gave to the apostles. There is a difference between the authority granted to an Apostle to make Holy Writ and the sacramental purpose of the bishop. If sacramentally there is nothing going on in either episcopal consecrations or presbyterian ordinations ('presbyerian' meaning ordination to the priesthood), there seems little reason to do them at all, and little reason to bar the layman from presiding at any of the sacraments.

Congratulations. You're a congregationalist.

How about a Sydney Anglican?

God calls Presbyters and the Episcopate, not the church. The Church merely agrees with God's calling. You should also be very careful to recognize that the Bishop was considered to be the "focal point" because of the teaching he represented...not some farsical didgitic ceremony.

I mean, if I went around...claiming I was a Bishop, just because John Shelby Spong, Rt. Rev. Holloway, and Desmond Tutu caressed my head...they'd put me away!

The Apostolic Faith (on which the church is built...it's cornerstone being Christ) is the important thing here, not some descendancy of hands.

If you do respond to this, and I do not...please don't think I've conceded to Tradition, I'm just swamped with school.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by AlwaysReforming

How about a Sydney Anglican?

Blech.

God calls Presbyters and the Episcopate, not the church.

Agreed. Don't forget the Diaconate, too.

You should also be very careful to recognize that the Bishop was considered to be the "focal point" because of the teaching he represented...not some farsical didgitic ceremony.

But the didgitic ceremony was what made him a bishop, not because he preached the truth. I preach the Apostolic faith; that doesn't make me a bishop.

I mean, if I went around...claiming I was a Bishop, just because John Shelby Spong, Rt. Rev. Holloway, and Desmond Tutu caressed my head...they'd put me away!

That doesn't matter. That comes very, very close to Donatism by requiring sacramental action to be effective on the condition of the administrator. And that ain't cool.

Moreover, if you went around... Claiming you were a bishop, just because you preached the Apostolic faith, they'd put you away! In fact, there's a whole slew of folks running around claiming to be bishops because they preach the apostolic faith to one degree or another. That doesn't make them bishops.

The Apostolic Faith (on which the church is built...it's cornerstone being Christ) is the important thing here, not some descendancy of hands.

I would probably ultimately agree, with the caveat that the sacramental authority of the bishop is just as important. Otherwise, you're left minimizing the whole point of ordination to the point of nothingness. At which point, you're a Sydney Anglican/Congregationalist.

If you do respond to this, and I do not...please don't think I've conceded to Tradition, I'm just swamped with school.

I claim victory anyway.