A month ago the news was published on ekumenizm.pl that Austrian Catholics associated in the group “We are the church” (Wir sind Kirche) announced that they intended to start celebrating the mass themselves when there is no priest available. Under this short post arose a discussion in which I took part. I wrote there, among other things, the following:
Through the sacrament of baptism we enter the sphere of the church, the sacrament of confirmation gives us the fullness of rights derived from our presence there (this differentiation is in fact artificial – baptism contains everything in itself, which also its symbolism points at, and it is far more consistent to follow the Eastern Churches and administer both the sacraments at once, but the West, for various reasons, chose differently). There is no such right in the church which a baptized person would not enjoy, there is nothing which he or she “wouldn’t be commissioned” to do. Every other approach indirectly undermines baptism and its meaning as inclusion of a person into the community of the People of God. On the other hand we desire that our communities function properly, that there be order and harmony. That there happens what should happen and – idealiter – that what shouldn’t happen doesn’t. And here comes about the role of ministries/offices. Although it can be that their origins are in essence functional, their importance exceeds mere functionality. The ministries in the church are somewhat like convex lenses. Those who are ordained to them converge and personify a certain aspect of the church (and in the case of a bishop – the entire church). In this way the ordained person becomes a “Gegenüber”: he or she stands in front of the community and confronts it with what it is, has been and should be. On the other hand, however, we mustn’t forget that this lens can converge ONLY WHAT IS ALREADY A PART OF THE COMMUNITY’S CALLING. The deacon, the priest and the bishop don’t derive their prerogatives “out of thin air”, they receive them from the church which has chosen them and granted them those prerogatives. And you can grant only what YOU POSSES, don’t you? If the church – as a whole – doesn’t have a given “right”, also the bishop cannot have it (including the bishop of Rome!)! That is why, by undermining the rights of “laypersons” (who are actually not “laypersons” at all – they are baptized Christians, and, as such, they have all the rights!) to do certain things, you undermine no less than the rights of every ordained person. For how did they receive their rights if not BECAUSE THE CHURCH GRANTED THOSE RIGHTS TO THEM? If I give you plenipotentiary powers to dispose of my estate (which would mean in practice paying off my debts, so I will spare you this!), that means, in any case, that I myself have the right to dispose of it. In the Roman Catholic Church, however, we have to do with a situation where a plenipotentiary seeks to incapacitate the person who gave him his powers. And he doesn’t notice that, by doing this, he invalidates also the fact that the powers were bestowed on him, which means no less than cutting his own throat. The following story comes now to my mind. After the Second Vatican Council the Dutch Roman Catholic Church held its own “pastoral council” in Noordwijkerhout, which was not acknowledged by Rome. I was once friends with someone, regrettably already deceased, who took part in this event. He told me about it, and I can remember especially well one thing which he said then: Never did the bishops have such authority as when they sat with us at one table – as with their equals – and started to talk… Never before and never after, because the “Dutch experiment” was terminated before it could bare any fruits. If you want the same thing in Austria, that’s fine. For how nice it is to live in a former church or go shopping to one and console yourself that there is still a group of “always faithful” Ultramontanists left somewhere, who celebrate the “Mass of All Time”…
When I was finished, I asked myself where do the thoughts I expressed there come from. It turned out that they come from various sources. Beginning with Ecclesiological Jansenism ,which influenced the Dutch Old Catholic vision of the church, through baptismal ecclesiology of American Episcopalians, to the experiences of basis communities created in the 70s and 80s first in South America and then also in Western Europe, which were given a theological framework by Edward Schillebeeckx in his books ‘Basis en ambt’ and ‘Kerkelijk ambt’. It seems to me, however, that all these threads created a whole which is perhaps controversial, but consistent. When I and Loukas read my text once again, we came up with the idea to ask some other people for a commentary. For the beginning we chose two friends representing different traditions – Prof. Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski from the Church Divinity School of the Pacific (you can read more about him here ) and my colleague, Dr. Pieter Post, pastor of the Mennonite congregation in the nearby town of Beverwijk (the Netherlands). Here are their reactions. Prof. Dan Joslyn-Siemiatkoski wrote:
As a lay person who teaches in an Episcopal Church seminary, the question of the relationship between the laity and the ordained is one to which I constantly return. I help prepare people for ordained ministry who one day will perform duties that I cannot perform. This is not necessarily a negative thing. It is always a great joy for me to receive communion from a former student. Teaching in a seminary also reminds me that there are many forms of ministry, ordained ministry being only one of them. This observation in part is derived from my own context of teaching at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California. If you read carefully Colin Podmore’s recent article on the baptismal ecclesiology of the Episcopal Church in the journal Ecclesiology , you will realize that many of the key shapers of this perspective have either been professors or students at my school, including the current Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. [1] Baptismal ecclesiology as articulated by the Episcopal Church offers a different perspective on the nature of ministry than that found in other churches in the Anglican tradition or in Roman Catholicism. Significantly, this vision of ministry, especially as articulated in the Baptismal Covenant found in the 1979 American revision of the Book of Common Prayer, established that all Christians, beginning with the laity, are commissioned for ministry. The Catechism in this prayer book states “the ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons.” Furthermore, the ministry of the laity in the Catechism is defined as the ministry “to represent Christ and his Church; to bear witness to him wherever they may be; and, according to the gifts given to them, to carry on Christ’s work of reconciliation in the world; and to take their place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church.” This vision of ministry is understood to flow out of the sacrament of baptism. By virtue of the grace of baptism, all the people of God can manifest Christ’s work in the world. All the baptized are commissioned as agents of God’s mission. This is a markedly different vision of ministry than found elsewhere. In both Roman Catholic and Church of England ecclesiologies, ministry emerges out of a sphere of activity separate from baptism, coming as ordination by bishops for a specific ministry. This vision of ministry as found in the Episcopal Church’s baptismal ecclesiology decenters a vision of ministry in which the priest dispensing sacraments is central. While the Episcopal Church itself greatly values the sacraments of baptism and eucharist and makes them a marker of Christian identity, its understanding of ministry does not revolve around the priestly actions of dispensing the sacraments. Rather, ministry is something for which all Christians are ordained. A truly vibrant Christian body is one in which all members are strengthened for their individual and corporate ministries, whether they are exercised by lay or ordained ministers. [1] Colin Podmore, “The Baptismal Revolution in the American Episcopal Church: Baptismal Ecclesiology and the Baptismal Covenant,” Ecclesiology 6 (2010): 8-38.
And Dr. Pieter Post wrote:
The Lord's supper in 18th century Mennonite congregation in Amsterdam
When critical Roman Catholic Christians desire to celebrate the mass without the priestly authority, it is no longer called a “mass” but simply celebrating the [Lord’s] supper. By this they affirm the church-historical and biblical stance of the Reformation that the supper is a memorial meal. But the three-fold office of bishop, elder and deacon, which from the times of emperor Constantine (4 th century) has been universally accepted, forbids them the dispensation of sacraments. Even the progressive Old Catholic Church, which, unlike Rome, nowadays admits women to ordained ministry, wouldn’t allow this. Neither would the Reformed Protestant churches. According to their church doctrine “ordinary” but convinced Christians may not do this. What moves the critical Roman Catholics shall never have the slightest chance to be acknowledged within the church. They will have to find their own way, inspired only by the New Testament, without the burden of patristics, scholasticism and the Neoplatonic thought. A serious test, which you can use in order to respond to the faith and your feelings and desires in our times, is a Biblical study of [the meaning of the term] ekklesia. What does ekklesia stand for as a movement? What does it mean literally? To what is it an alternative? What does Paul say about this in his Letter to the Galatians? What does he say there about baptism? What does he say in his Letter to the Corinthians about the supper? What is generally his vision of the world and how is it employed in the congregation? Then it will turn out that baptism and the [Lord’s] supper are not mysterious practices, and so are not sacraments, but very concrete signs of the new world. For this is what the church-historical problem of this desire has to do with. “Ordinary” parishioners may not dispense the sacraments, because those are given with priesthood. Critical Roman Catholics in the 16th century, later called Anabaptists (Mennonites, Hutterites and Brethren), understood this very well. They took the risk of breaking with the tradition by being baptized as adults. Their purpose was the liberation from immaturity, the idea that anticipated the thought of Kant. Also when a Christian is baptized as a child, she/he is commissioned to celebrate the s upper. The problem is only that she/he is still bound by the shackles of the official system which doesn’t allow him/her to do it. The New Testament provides all the possibilities to escape from it. The freedom which comes from God is proclaimed to those who are touched by the Holy Spirit in order to spread the witness of our Lord Jesus. Then the church is no longer an institution, but a movement on its way to a new world, where there is enough bread, justice and love for everyone. And that people have to organize among themselves. Behold the free church, congregational and not hierarchical, as an alternative perspective in the post-Constantine era. Accepting Jesus as Lord is enough.
Dr. Pieter Post (1958) is a Mennonite theologian. Currently he is a pastor in the United Mennonite Church of IJmond, the Netherlands. He taught at the Free University of Amsterdam and there he earned his Phd on the subject of Mennonite Hymnology (2010).
In all three commentaries one thing stands out. Despite our different backgrounds, we completely agree about one thing: the source which every ministry in the church flows from is the baptism. It is from baptism, and not for example from ordination by a bishop, that the call to ministering in the church comes. On the other hand, our conclusions are nevertheless different. For Dan and me the sacrament remains extremely important (it may not be signaled in my text, but those who regularly visit the blog shouldn’t have any doubt about it). Pieter moved away from the notion of sacrament in the direction of the notion of sign. You could ask all of us many questions. The question I hear very often is about the way I combine my fundamental attachment to the three-fold church ministry with ministering in a congregation whose very existence somehow questions this three-fold ministry. After reading Dan’s text arises the question what is actually the basis in the Episcopal Church for the differentiation of laity, deacons, priests and bishops since the baptismal covenant is actually the common source of every ministry. And when reading Pieter’s contribution one feels like asking if accentuating the Lord’s supper as “the sign of the new world” and ekklesia as a movement really must lead to moving away from the sacramental mystery. Are sacraments really “given with priesthood”? Perhaps we should rather say, following the same New Testament Pieter refers to, that we all are “royal priesthood”, and the ordained ministry makes this priesthood concrete? You may certainly ask many more such questions. If you feel like it, we invite you to discussion.
