TEC & UMC dialogue on full communion

CanadianAnglican said:

Will they need to suspend the Lambeth Quadrilateral again in order to enter into full communion. There are no comments in these articles on the substance of the dialogue but to my knowledge the Lambeth Quadrilateral is incompatible with the UMC, so like with ELCA, it will need to be suspended in order to enter into communion.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about the idea of incompatibility. What elements of the Quadrilateral are you thinking of?

Arcangl86 said:

IIRC it was a long time ago and the talks about an organic merger was back when it was still the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Click to expand...

The last time any branch of the Methodist Church was known as the "Methodist Episcopal Church" was the 1930s.

That's ~80 years ago, and there was no plan for an "organic merger" at that time either. Simply lending support to the Methodist churches that merged to become the United Methodist Church, and several individual congregations that merged into The Episcopal Church due to declining numbers.

Albion said:

It STARTED a half-century ago. The work, with basically the same churches, goes on. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consultation_on_Church_Union
and follow the CUIC link as well.

Click to expand...

COCU dissolved and became CUIC, which isn't what you're claiming it is.

All of them were about ecumenism and intercommunion. Not a merger.

They specifically refused to use the term merger because of all of its baggage.

None of these talks resulted in any movement towards UMC and TEC (or any of the COCU members) becoming a single organization – and all talk in that direction was firmly rejected (the egregiously failed 1970 Plan of Union).

Albion said:

I'm curious about the idea of incompatibility. What elements of the Quadrilateral are you thinking of?

Click to expand...

The Episcopacy (fourth article of the Quadrilateral). The UMC very specifically rejects the historic episcopacy, and while it maintains the use of the term bishop, their view is basically exactly the same as that of ECLA (pastors were elected to the office of bishop, but it is not a particular order of ministry).

When TEC entered into communion with ECLA, General Convention suspended the Lambeth Quadrilateral because of the incompatibility of ECLA with the Quadrilateral's fourth article, and then reinstated in the Quadrilateral once Full Communion had been agreed upon.

This is the part of the Quadrilateral that makes that whole temporary suspension compromise rather ridiculous:

But furthermore, we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity...can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

Incapable of compromise or surrender, indeed.

CanadianAnglican said:

The UMC very specifically rejects the historic episcopacy, and while it maintains the use of the term bishop, their view is basically exactly the same as that of ECLA (pastors were elected to the office of bishop, but it is not a particular order of ministry).

Click to expand...

That's what I thought you might have had in mind. Consider (in addition to the point you made about the ELCA situation) that there are two elements in the Quadrilateral which are not as airtight as many assume. The Quadrilateral deliberately speaks of the "Historic Episcopate," which is not the same as "Apostolic Succession," and the Methodist churches do have the ability to claim Apostolic Succession anyway. Their history and theology is not that of the ELCA in this regard.

Beyond that, I won't say more since doing that would probably bring another round of "rebuttals" and accusations from posters claiming that I had done the unthinkable and made a firm prediction of something or other merely by mentioning possible developments that might follow.

Albion said:

I won't say more since doing that would probably bring another round of "rebuttals" and accusations from posters claiming that I had done the unthinkable and made a firm prediction of something or other merely by mentioning possible developments that might follow.

Click to expand...

It simply seems that you're happy to be the naysayer of all things Episcopalian, so you will be challenged.

You're also loose with backing up stuff like this with sources, so you will be asked to provide them.

You also have a penchant for mis-representing the Episcopal Church's position on a number of issues, so you will be corrected.

As many times as necessary.

Albion, I don't know I agree with you. The historic episcopacy is pretty clearly a reference to the threefold order of ministry. Like the Lutherans, however, the UMC do not regard bishops as an order of ministry but merely an office held by elders/pastors. Looking at it, the whole separation of the methodists from the Anglican tradition was the result of their inability to find bishops to maintain apostolic succession and ordain priests, leading to the "in an emergency, priests can ordain priests" and ultimately the view of the episcopacy as merely an office held by priests and not a separate order of ministry.

The precedent is already there with the Lutherans. I don't really see how it would work to do it in any other way. Then again, General Convention has essentially already said that these documents have malleable meaning (in that General Convention is free to redefine their meaning as needed) so perhaps they wont even bother with suspending it this time (assuming things actually move ahead).

CanadianAnglican said:

Albion, I don't know I agree with you. The historic episcopacy is pretty clearly a reference to the threefold order of ministry. Like the Lutherans, however, the UMC do not regard bishops as an order of ministry but merely an office held by elders/pastors. Looking at it, the whole separation of the methodists from the Anglican tradition was the result of their inability to find bishops to maintain apostolic succession and ordain priests, leading to the "in an emergency, priests can ordain priests" and ultimately the view of the episcopacy as merely an office held by priests and not a separate order of ministry.

Click to expand...

Hi, CA. I know that I'm going to invite trouble from some quarters for this but I'll explain. The reason the CofE retained Apostolic Succession was because it was historic and orderly. The church did not attach the same meaning to it as the Roman Church does. This is not recognized by most Anglicans today, for one reason because our lineage and the validity of those bishops has been zealously defended by us, especially after the Papal declaration against it. IOW, there is a bit of a difference and that constitutes a possible opening to some other churches, such as the Methodists.

As for the Methodists and polity, yes I know what you're saying about their view of things and superintendents and bishops that aren't the same as ours, etc. BUT, there has always been a claim by Methodists that John Wesley was validly if irregularly consecrated and then had to keep it a secret. It would not be amazing if this were somehow recognized by an Anglican body pursuant to some sort of conditional reconsecration of bishops yada yada yada. Just consider the point that you made earlier about the ELCA and how TEC and that church worked around that issue. From both ends, in fact. A lot can be done if there is but a little crack of an opening to build upon, and it's been done many times.

The precedent is already there with the Lutherans. I don't really see how it would work to do it in any other way. Then again, General Convention has essentially already said that these documents have malleable meaning (in that General Convention is free to redefine their meaning as needed) so perhaps they wont even bother with suspending it this time (assuming things actually move ahead).

Click to expand...

You understand.

I had never heard the claim re John Wesley. I was always under the impression it was just rooted in the argument of exigent circumstances. Interesting to see if they try to push it that way.

I am actually aware of the differences in views of Apostolic Succession, but my point was more that in no way can the UMC claim it because the threefold order of ministry is a part of the faith once delivered to the saints and preserved in apostolic succession. Regardless of whether or not we view Anglican apostolic succession as an accident of history/matter of convenience or an intentional preservation (I would argue that point given my own views on the goals of the English reformers), it's quite a separate position from the UMC, even when discussing the context of TEC (which, like numerous other national churches has, in its own way, departed from the faith).

CanadianAnglican said:

I had never heard the claim re John Wesley. I was always under the impression it was just rooted in the argument of exigent circumstances. Interesting to see if they try to push it that way.

I am actually aware of the differences in views of Apostolic Succession, but my point was more that in no way can the UMC claim it because the threefold order of ministry is a part of the faith once delivered to the saints and preserved in apostolic succession. Regardless of whether or not we view Anglican apostolic succession as an accident of history/matter of convenience or an intentional preservation (I would argue that point given my own views on the goals of the English reformers), it's quite a separate position from the UMC, even when discussing the context of TEC (which, like numerous other national churches has, in its own way, departed from the faith).

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that there's a footnote or technicality there which could be used to work around the differences in hierarchy and polity that you refer to. And I should perhaps also say that I don't suppose that all of this will happen overnight. Union agreements do take time, often passing through a period of full communion but not union.

Yes, of course. My comments are merely discussing full communion agreement. I think there would probably need to be more movement for union, but I pretty much see something like the Canadian United Church happening in the US in the next 25 years or so.

I am not sure it can be maintained that *the* Anglican position mandates that the historic episcopate is essential to maintaining the wholeness of the faith and church. I do not have all my sources on hand at the moment, but I have read in various places that the Church of England has at times in its past accepted into its ranks without absolute or conditional ordination Presbyterian clergy -- and they were allowed to function as priests. Googling "Church of England presbyteral succession," "Anglicans presbyteral succesion," or the like will bring up some of these sources. Many Presbyterians claim like Methodists to trace their clergy back to the apostles or at least the early church but via presbyters or priests rather than bishops.

The Roman Catholic Church has also times allowed priests to ordain men into minor orders as well as to the diaconate and priesthood. I note this did not include consecration to the episcopate however. In the papal bull Sacræ religionis (February 1, 1400) Pope Boniface IX granted the Abbot of St. Ossith in Essex to confer holy orders up to and including the priesthood. This permission was limited to a certain time frame and such ordinations would likely not be considered valid if conducted without proper authority, at least in the Roman Catholic perspective at the time: these are extraordinary rather than ordinary acts of ordination. This is only one papal bull that granted such permission. There are at least a few.

John Wesley himself cites historical precedents in favor of his view that extraordinary circumstances can warrant episcopal consecrations by priests.

Sources from both Catholic and Protestant theologians and historians are often agreed that the development of the historic episcopate was a gradual and uneven process. I am certainly unconvinced that Jesus founded the historic episcopate and that it existed in its present form from the first day of the Church.

Historic factors such as these give plenty of room in my opinion to work with Methodists on this issue just as we in the Episcopal Church did with the ELCA.

I have heard that the use of protestant ministers in place of clergy was briefly accepted for a time and then immediately condemned. You cannot hang doctrine on practices that have not endured where those practices ceased due to condemnation of them (arguments can be made when practices simply fall into disuse).

Regardless of that, the easy counter to that argument is that whatever the practice in England, the Lambeth Quadrilateral supercedes that as a clearly articulated policy of TEC. Reunion with other traditions/communions (including full communion relationships) is based on the Labeth Quadrilateral which includes in its criteria the historic episcopate.

Again with ELCA General Convention firmly stated that entering into full communion with ELCA would violate the Lambeth Quadrilateral, so the "compromise" was to suspend it, vote to enter into full communion, restore the Lambeth Quadrilateral and then there was the whole proposal that all ELCA bishops would henceforth be consecrated by Anglican and Lutheran bishops to, effectively, restore the apostolic succession. Then various ELCA bishops refused and it all fell apart, but that was the plan.

It's an awful lot of mental gymnastics to try and make this relationship fit, no matter how you look at it, without substantial change in the UMC?

Here's a new question then: if these full communion relationships are so important as to (and I think everyone would generally agree to this) violate the Lambeth Quadrilateral, is it time for TEC to just abandon the Lambeth Quadrilateral as an instrument of unity? Acknowledge that it no longer represents the criteria for full communion and that they no longer believe its beliefs to be essential to unity?

CanadianAnglican said:

I have heard that the use of protestant ministers in place of clergy was briefly accepted for a time and then immediately condemned. You cannot hang doctrine on practices that have not endured where those practices ceased due to condemnation of them (arguments can be made when practices simply fall into disuse).

Regardless of that, the easy counter to that argument is that whatever the practice in England, the Lambeth Quadrilateral supercedes that as a clearly articulated policy of TEC. Reunion with other traditions/communions (including full communion relationships) is based on the Labeth Quadrilateral which includes in its criteria the historic episcopate.

Again with ELCA General Convention firmly stated that entering into full communion with ELCA would violate the Lambeth Quadrilateral, so the "compromise" was to suspend it, vote to enter into full communion, restore the Lambeth Quadrilateral and then there was the whole proposal that all ELCA bishops would henceforth be consecrated by Anglican and Lutheran bishops to, effectively, restore the apostolic succession. Then various ELCA bishops refused and it all fell apart, but that was the plan.

It's an awful lot of mental gymnastics to try and make this relationship fit, no matter how you look at it, without substantial change in the UMC?

Here's a new question then: if these full communion relationships are so important as to (and I think everyone would generally agree to this) violate the Lambeth Quadrilateral, is it time for TEC to just abandon the Lambeth Quadrilateral as an instrument of unity? Acknowledge that it no longer represents the criteria for full communion and that they no longer believe its beliefs to be essential to unity?

Click to expand...

I never heard of it being condemned. By whom and in what sense was it condemned?

You are right about the Quadrilateral's incompatibility with intercommunion with the ELCA. I did not know some bishops refused the episcopate. I always thought some things about ELCA were too far from us to enter into communion (their agreement with UCC). Under current practice we may as well at least abrogate the clause on the episcopate to be consistent.

The practice of allowing protestants to preside over the Eucharist was condemned by the bishops of the Church of England. I remember that much from the brief reference to it in Church history class. I don't know that I have any references available, though. Might be able to dig up something from notes if I still have them handy. I'll have a poke around tomorrow and see if I can't find something for you