tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post7621875191334044733..comments2023-10-16T08:12:13.145-05:00Comments on Four and Twenty+ Blackbirds: What to do with the VicarRev. Rick Stuckwischhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-34451044252064581322009-05-23T20:02:13.094-05:002009-05-23T20:02:13.094-05:00Nearly 40 years ago, debate was begun at the St. L...Nearly 40 years ago, debate was begun at the St. Louis Seminary to replace vicars with ordained deacons. Academic work would be completed in three successive years, after which calls would be extended and these men would be ordained.<br /><br />I recall that it was debated if these men would serve as deacons or as curates; but a distinction between orders was never made. It was assumed that these men would be ordained into the fullness of the apostolic ministry.<br /><br />Be assured that this debate involved both students and faculty; this idea did not get very far. Still, a number of men, myself included, were ordained deacons prior to going on vicarage. <br /><br />It is good to see this idea being resurrected. It is not proper to have <I>card carrying</I> laymen as <I>ministers</I> of Word and Sacrament.Dcn. Muehlenbruchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12088586709685687573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-33841391814611177982009-05-23T15:21:01.350-05:002009-05-23T15:21:01.350-05:00I think that is a good - and significant - start t...I think that is a good - and significant - start to the list, Pr. Cwirla. Thanks.<br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-13009371410102832472009-05-22T10:47:47.618-05:002009-05-22T10:47:47.618-05:00"I think it is possible and necessary also to make..."I think it is possible and necessary also to make a list of the differences between a sermon preached by a minister and the speaking of Gospel comfort from one Christian to another. "<br /><br />Here is one possibility:<br /><br />The sermon is always spoken in the I-Thou mode of speaking, addressing the hearer personally as sinner/saint. I am of the opinion that it really isn't preaching if there isn't "you" language at some level. In this sense, one might say that the sermon is "sacramental." One dare not speak this way unless one is duly authorized; otherwise it is sheer presumption on the part of the speaker.<br /><br />The Christian conversation is spoken as we/us, in which the speaker and hearer are in solidarity with one another. This requires no authorization, only faith in Christ.<br /><br />The issue is not whether or not God is present in these two modes of speaking, or if that speaking is "effective" in terms of faith creation, but whether one is given to speak in I/Thou terms on behalf of God. This is reflected in our usages concerning the benediction and the absolution.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-66778783887732786202009-05-21T15:01:35.952-05:002009-05-21T15:01:35.952-05:00"And what's more, we should be careful what our pr..."And what's more, we should be careful what our practice is. The way our six thousand parishes confess and practice regarding the OHM is by far more important that a blog debate."<br /><br />This is also true. One might also consider whether a "blog debate" is the best forum for such a serious matter that involves our very unity. In my estimation, blogs are far too immediate and undigested and the comment stream even less so. <br /><br />These are serious intramural issues within the fellowship of the LCMS that impact our unity and the faith of our people and should be dealt with internally, out of the hearing of the general public, with respect and humility. I fear that forum type discussions such as LutherQuest or blog debates wind up doing much more harm than good in the long run.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-20714649468314317362009-05-21T14:47:08.994-05:002009-05-21T14:47:08.994-05:00"We should also be careful how we debate this poin..."We should also be careful how we debate this point, mindful of the fact that the rest of the world, believing and unbelieving, is potentially listening in."<br /><br />I agree. And what's more, we should be careful what our practice is. The way our six thousand parishes confess and practice regarding the OHM is by far more important that a blog debate.<br /><br />And at this point, the LCMS is really the LCMess. We have vicars "consecrating," we have men ordained after taking eight correspondence courses, we have a plethora of "licensing" programs for the unordained, and even the use of "elders" to go to people's homes for "communion night" apart from the altar of the parish.<br /><br />All the while, we have the very plain word of AC14 - which is as often as not seen not as a confession, but rather as a bureaucratic stumblingblock that needs a "loophole."Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-82059475049780189682009-05-21T14:27:23.337-05:002009-05-21T14:27:23.337-05:00"* The Bible is infallible. A sermon may err.
* T..."* The Bible is infallible. A sermon may err.<br /><br />* The Holy Spirit directly inspired the writer's of the Scriptures. The pastor is guided by the Spirit's working through the Scriputres. "<br /><br />I think these are good distinctions and may very well contain the essential reason why one should not preach without being authorized (rite vocatus included examination or testing (dokimazo). The preached Word always has an element of uncertainty to it which the Office alone cannot overcome. We must be sure that the one who preaches is competent to preach, just as we don't let interns do brain surgery. Interpretation and application of Scripture is serious and tricky business.<br /><br />I'm not as sure that one can distinguish the speaking of the ordained from the unordained in quite the same terms. <br /><br />Some Lutherans seem to treat the activity of preaching as a "sacramental" act, which gives rise to the question of the original post recast in this manner: <I>Is the sacramental act of preaching a valid sacrament when administered by the unordained (a vicar or a layman)?</I>Experience teaches us that discussion of a question of this depth is far beyond the limitations of the comment stream on a blog.<br /><br />We should also be careful how we debate this point, mindful of the fact that the rest of the world, believing and unbelieving, is potentially listening in.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-35573147173778585492009-05-21T12:57:43.913-05:002009-05-21T12:57:43.913-05:00This is not a question ultimately about the effica...This is not a question ultimately about the efficacy of the Word and what it depends on. This is about who should and who should not preach. To whom is it given, and to whom is it not given? "How can they preach unless they are sent?" The Word is efficacious on the lips of a peasant as much as it is on the lips of a priest. And peasant and priest alike, *as Christians* are called to confess Christ to their neighbors. The difference is that a pastor has orders from the king Himself to preach this Word to the Church, to be His spokesman and herald. This is why the peasant should not presume to speak in Christ's name to the Church--He has no order, no command to do so. As David Scaer once quipped in an email: The Office of the Ministry exists for the sake of Justification, but justification can take place apart from the office, as even many people believed without ever having met Christ. "The rumor of him went throughout all Judea." Pastors have no choice but to preach; "Woe is me if I do not preach the Gospel."Rev. Paul Beiselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678751687495292703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-8816088581474638452009-05-21T12:37:03.454-05:002009-05-21T12:37:03.454-05:00Speaking requires a speaker. Preaching requires a...Speaking requires a speaker. Preaching requires a preacher. It is an artificial distinction to sever the message from the messenger. And yet, Lutherans (who are always speaking about "means") do it all the time.<br /><br />They routinely speak of "the Word" as though it floats about like a phantom. <br /><br />The proclaimed Word needs a person to proclaim it - and it is not just any person. It is a matter of vocation. Some people (the vast majority, in fact) are not called to preach, just as I am not called to do brain surgery or change my own oil (both of which would be unmitigated disaster).<br /><br />There were several examples in the OT of how the Lord treats usurpation of the ministry that He has established.<br /><br />"Everyone a Minister" and the Wicheta Amendment to the Augsburg Confession are more than just bad ideas, they are diabolical and antithetical to what our Lord Himself instituted - even though they are wrapped in the warm fuzzies of "democracy" and "love for the lost."<br /><br />I think such practices boil down to a lack of faith in the Word and a lack of fear of offending the Lord.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-63931799484433422052009-05-21T12:28:02.843-05:002009-05-21T12:28:02.843-05:00Pr. Cwirla,
If I read your concern correctly it i...Pr. Cwirla,<br /><br />If I read your concern correctly it is that we don't make the efficacy of the Word dependent upon anything but the Word. Agreed. The Word is always effective to perform the purpose which God has in mind for it - whether it is scratched in a bathroom door or preached from a gilded pulpit.<br /><br />But that does not meat that a Bible reading and a sermon are the same thing - even though they are both the Word. It is possible and necessary to list differences between them. <br /><br />* The Bible is infallible. A sermon may err.<br /><br />* The Holy Spirit directly inspired the writer's of the Scriptures. The pastor is guided by the Spirit's working through the Scriputres. <br /><br />And we could list many more. <br /><br />I think it is possible and necessary also to make a list of the differences between a sermon preached by a minister and the speaking of Gospel comfort from one Christian to another. <br /><br />Do you agree? Can such a list be made? If so, what would you include in the list? <br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-85366884085643121792009-05-21T10:04:12.720-05:002009-05-21T10:04:12.720-05:00Another problem we face is an anachronistic readin...Another problem we face is an anachronistic reading of the Scriptures with regard to "office." <br /><br />Hans von Campenhausen gives the full treatment in Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Hbk. ISBN: 1565632729. This is a worthy read. I'm glad to see it's available in English as I had to read it in German at the seminary.<br /><br />He traces a slow institutionalization of clerical offices over the 2nd century. We Lutherans tend to read back a more unified understanding of "office" (officium, Amt) than is present in the 1st or 2nd centuries.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-75528608639702278972009-05-21T00:41:44.880-05:002009-05-21T00:41:44.880-05:00That should be "full responsibility." I think my ...That should be "full responsibility." I think my error is more of a fat-finger on the keyboard than a Freudian slip. ;-)Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-39013980956907160802009-05-21T00:38:14.668-05:002009-05-21T00:38:14.668-05:00Well, maybe you're reading too much into the word ...Well, maybe you're reading too much into the word "sacrifice." I wouldn't call the distribution of preconsecrated elements a "Mass" either - as the Mass includes the action of consecration.<br /><br />But neither would I deny the Lord's Presence when a deacon distributes elements consecrated by a presbyter. At that point, it's only the latter half of the Mass - the distribution and reception part.<br /><br />In the RC church, deacons are permitted to preach under the supervision of a bishop. In that sense, it isn't all that different than our use of vicarage bishops to assume responsibility of the vicar's "preaching." I doubt that they read over every word - but then again, my vicarage bishop didn't either. But he did assume dull responsibility - so I guess that's something.<br /><br />At least a Roman Catholic deacon is under holy orders. Our vicars (some of whom are "preaching" without supervision and "consecrating" without ordination) revert back to being seminarians after a year of what amounts to functional deaconship (usually) without benefit of actually being consecrated/ordained a deacon.<br /><br />I think that only adds to the confusion over the holy office and the boundaries of laymen.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-82423635803007434132009-05-21T00:26:34.361-05:002009-05-21T00:26:34.361-05:00I was talking with a Roman Catholic woman recently...I was talking with a Roman Catholic woman recently who lives in a deep rural area. They have a priest visit once a month. A deacon conducts the liturgy once a month\. The other two Sundays are conducted by laity. The deacon and the laymen read and preach, but distribute pre-consecrated elements. The woman noted that this wasn't really a Mass but a "service" since the priest wasn't there to offer the sacrifice. She still believed they received the Body of Christ, though. I thought it was interesting. I'm not saying we should do this, of course.<br /><br />The chief concern with the Roman Catholics seems to be the eucharistic sacrifice; preaching is not an issue. Just a comparison.<br /><br />I wonder if anyone else ties the efficacy of preaching to the Office.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-26840862937640166482009-05-21T00:07:55.228-05:002009-05-21T00:07:55.228-05:00"The issue of the *wickedness* of the one administ..."The issue of the *wickedness* of the one administering the sacrament has nothing to do with the issue of the *authority* of the person purporting to officiate at a sacrament. These are simply different matters."<br /><br />This was my point precisely. Ap VII/VIII uses Lk 10:16 only to show that the sacraments are effective in spite of the wickedness of the administrants. Neither the Confessions, nor I, am making some derivative argument regarding whom should be authorized or whether the unauthorized (ie unordained) may do these things.<br /><br />I would agree that we do the Church a great disservice by not fully authorizing those who are to preach and preside. Authority and function always go together. It is the essence of the concept of "office."WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-78874157343015859232009-05-20T23:13:38.264-05:002009-05-20T23:13:38.264-05:00The issue of the *wickedness* of the one administe...The issue of the *wickedness* of the one administering the sacrament has nothing to do with the issue of the *authority* of the person purporting to officiate at a sacrament. These are simply different matters.<br /><br />Equating these two completely separate issues is a trick used by the advocates of women's ordination. They claim that those who deny the validity of "sacraments" performed by women purported to be in the pastoral office are guilty of Donatism. <br /><br />This charge was levied against David Scaer by some of the St. Louis faculty in response to his CTQ article "The Validity of Sacramental Acts [sic] of Women Pastors [sic]" - and those making the charge were soundly refuted by Wenthe and Weinrich in respose (the debate raged in CTQ a few years back).<br /><br />Preaching and administering sacraments is given to certain individuals as a vocation (as AC14 puts it: rite vocatus - "called by rite"). Those outside of that call (vocatio) to that office (Predigamt) simply have no authority to speak on behalf of our Lord by way of preaching, nor to administer the Lord's Supper. The Lord established the holy office. It isn't something for us to toy with. Our Christian freedom doesn't allow us to ignore that matter of divinely-established authority by flippantly suggesting it is simply a meaningless gesture, that anybody can act as though they bear that office apart from the Lord's call and authority. <br /><br />Confessing the truth of the Gospel with one's mouth is obviously something all Christians are called to do - but preaching and the administration of sacraments is simply a different story - which is why we have AC14.<br /><br />The argument that the Word is efficacious apart from one "ritely" called is a slippery slope to gnosticism. I used to work with a guy whose dad worked in a slaughterhouse. They used to have a rabbi to bless the animals killed according to kosher rituals. They laid off the rabbi and simply replaced him with a tape recorder. And it seems this was okay by the Jews.<br /><br />After all, what's the problem if the Word is efficacious apart from a person under authority to speak the Word? Or so the argument goes.<br /><br />Similarly, I'll bet some Lutherans would consider a sacrament to be valid if a parrot were trained to say the verba over bread and wine, or if children were playing church (as long as they use the right formula). This kind of thinking led to the scandal a while back of a pastor saying the words of institution on a DVD so the spectators at home could "have communion." What could be a better definition of "ex opera operato"? It borders on superstition and witchcraft.<br /><br />And if anyone using the right words can consecrate, that means any Satan worshiper who wants to blaspheme Christ need night try to steal consecrated hosts, he could simply consecrate them himself all day long. Even the devil knows better than that.<br /><br />I don't believe for an instant such things would be a sacrament in any way, shape, or form.<br /><br />And I do think our high view of preaching, and the fact that the Office of the Holy Ministry is called the "Predigamt" in German specifically means that preaching is not in a different category than the Holy Eucharist when it comes to authority - and this is simply not the vocation of the layman. He has no more authority to preach or consecrate than my signature on a bill passed by congress can make it a law. It would simply be an autograph, because I lack authority.<br /><br />I think we do a great disservice to the faithful when we allow men not under orders to play church.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-49486992717533223782009-05-20T22:43:34.749-05:002009-05-20T22:43:34.749-05:00They are all dealing with the "clergy," whether pa...They are all dealing with the "clergy," whether pastors or bishops. Only in the case of Ap VII/VIII is efficacy of the Word under consideration, and then it is resolved positively, namely the Word is efficacious in spite of the wickedness of those who administer it. <br /><br />But I don't see anything that would indicate that a sermon preached by a layman would not be effective.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-79772347282918926562009-05-20T21:29:45.636-05:002009-05-20T21:29:45.636-05:00Pr. Cwirla,
In each of those passages you quoted,...Pr. Cwirla,<br /><br />In each of those passages you quoted, the passage is always and only applied to the clergy, no?<br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-59184420014327269082009-05-20T19:42:08.702-05:002009-05-20T19:42:08.702-05:00"And I think the best way to get that nuance acros..."And I think the best way to get that nuance across is to point out Luke 10:16. The Confessions take that passage as referring to the preaching of the Minister."<br /><br />The Confessions use this passage in a variety of ways:<br /><br />* that parish pastors and congregations are to be obedient to their bishops (AC XXVIII.22)<br /><br />* that the Sacraments are efficacious even when administered by unworthy men (Ap VII/VIII.28,47)<br /><br />* that a penitent should believe the voice of the one absolving (Ap XII.40)<br /><br />* that bishops and pastors should preach the Word and not human traditions (AP XXVIII.19)<br /><br />I don't see anything in the passage or its use as a proof text in the Confessions that would indicate that the proclamation of a layman or a vicar would be ineffective or deficient in any way.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-71949314928801722442009-05-20T15:02:24.598-05:002009-05-20T15:02:24.598-05:00Dear Pastor Curtis,
Kurt Marquart's explanation o...Dear Pastor Curtis,<br /><br />Kurt Marquart's explanation of vicar preaching was just what you said. He wasn't preaching. He was reading the pastor's sermon. That is why the supervisor should not only read it very carefully, require changes, etc, but should also approve the final copy - word for word. I think this is doable. I tried to do it, and think I succeeded, in my one attempt at supervising a vicar. But I didn't have him read the sermon from the lectern. I think that is a good idea and wish I had.<br /><br />I also like your distinction regarding the Word in the comment above.<br /><br />- PetersenPetersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953264105046882429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-62875804316966015782009-05-20T12:40:45.113-05:002009-05-20T12:40:45.113-05:00I considered the very same plan for vicars, if I e...I considered the very same plan for vicars, if I ever had one : not preaching. Reading from the father's and writing sermons, but not actually preaching, because they are not called to do so. <br /><br />I think that men would be better preachers if they spent a year reading and analyzing Luther, Augustine and Chrysostom, than simply trying to write their "goal/malady/means" sermons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-73135713826424271062009-05-15T12:03:00.000-05:002009-05-15T12:03:00.000-05:00Pr. Cwirla,
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify...Pr. Cwirla,<br /><br />Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. <br /><br />No, I wouldn't say that at all. What I mean say is that Luke 10:16 would not apply to such a speech by a layman, since he is "running when he is not sent." That's a specific promise given to a specific office. <br /><br />We've gone round and round on this before. To summarize my point of view, all of the following are separate gifts and while they interact with each and overlap, they are all also unique and with their own promise:<br /><br />*The Word<br />*A Sermon preached by a holder of the Office<br />*A brother speaking to another a word of comfort<br />*A Bible reading<br /><br />To conflate all of those under "the Word" and put a period on the sentence only tells part of the story. I think there is more nuance to it than that. <br /><br />And I think the best way to get that nuance across is to point out Luke 10:16. The Confessions take that passage as referring to the preaching of the Minister. <br /><br />Do you think Luke 10:16 applies to all Christian speaking?<br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-21522323564586967702009-05-15T11:14:00.000-05:002009-05-15T11:14:00.000-05:00"Vicars shouldn't do that. No layman should. Indee..."Vicars shouldn't do that. No layman should. Indeed, I would say that even if they pretend to do so, there is no promise attached to their words. It would be false preaching just as a vicar consecrating would be a false consecration. "<br /><br />Care to elaborate on this point? It seems to be running by analogy. As with consecration so with preaching. It sounds to me as though you're saying that the Office validates the Word and makes it effective. Is that correct?WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-72139098850621287902009-05-15T07:35:00.000-05:002009-05-15T07:35:00.000-05:00Larry,
My only points are these.
1) There are go...Larry,<br /><br />My only points are these.<br /><br />1) There are good exegetical cases to be made for deacons in the NT, both that this office is a lesser form of the Ministry and that it has nothing to do with Word and Sacrament ministry at all.<br /><br />2) There has been historical confusion in Lutheranism over the topic. <br /><br />While I agree with you that a revived diaconal order would be better than what we've got now I think that given those conditions, we'd be wiser still to follow the curate route.<br /><br />Further, that ain't gonna happen either. The main point of my post was driving at a realistic way to use the system we have faithfully.<br /><br />+HRC<br /><br />I agree with you thatPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-68405333887424440502009-05-14T21:41:00.000-05:002009-05-14T21:41:00.000-05:00Dear Paul:
It would seem strange to ordain men in...Dear Paul:<br /><br />It would seem strange to ordain men into the ministry of word and sacrament *in order to* serve tables (Acts 6:2). The whole point was to *free the pastors* up to devote themselves to word and sacrament ministry (Acts 6:4). <br /><br />It would be like needing Lutheran school teachers and other auxiliary offices and just ordaining them all into the pastoral office so they can do things that are not word and sacrament ministry.<br /><br />If deacons and presbyters are in the same office, I just don't see why the NT writers would be so scrupulous to distinguish those offices, while uat the same time using the terms "bishop" and "elder" with almost careless interchangeability. <br /><br />Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-6663936562830558852009-05-14T21:30:00.000-05:002009-05-14T21:30:00.000-05:00Dear Heath:
I just don't see where any of that ma...Dear Heath:<br /><br />I just don't see where any of that matters. A lot of the "problem" is semantics. <br /><br />If a man was ordained into the Office of the Holy Ministry (the pastoral office) using the term "deacon" - then he is ordained into the presbyterial office. In that case, the word "deacon" was simply used to mean "presbyter." It's a little confusing, but not a theological problem. ELDoNA may even be doing just that today.<br /><br />In most Lutheran jurisdictions around the world, a man is explicitly ordained as a "priest." In my case, and probably yours, neither the word "priest" nor "presbyter" was used (nor was "bishop" for that matter) but rather "Office of the Holy Ministry." That's what the words in our English-language LCMS rite mean (presbyter).<br /><br />I think it would be more clear to use something more specific than "Office of the Holy Ministry" - but we know what the words mean.<br /><br />Likewise, when a woman is ordained a deaconess (and I'm not sure anyone really was in the New Testament, as the word can also simply mean "servant"), we don't make the argument that she is in the OHM (at least not yet) - but of course, some do. We used to tease a seminarian that his wife was ordained before he was (the DP laid hands on her).<br /><br />In that sense, the idea that a deacon is interchangeable with a presbyter/bishop only serves the fantasy that a woman can be a pastor. And feminists make that argument all the time.<br /><br />And, in one case in particular, I filled in at a church where the lay elders are called "deacons" and actually vest in albs and deacon stoles for the Divine Service. No-one is making the argument that these men are in the pastoral office. They just serve in their diaconal office with no synodical recognition, ironically unlike the deaconesses, who are rostered.<br /><br />Once again, Scripture makes a distinction between deacons and presbyter/bishops. 1 Tim 3 doesn't lump them all together. I think we *can* use the term "deacon" to describe an assistant pastor, but once more, I see no evidence that a man serving as a deacon *must* also be ordered as a presbyter.<br /><br />Again, in my own case, I was consecrated a deacon a year before I was ordained a pastor. I don't think you're suggesting that my ordination as a pastor was a sham (like a second "baptism") since I was already "in the office" by virtue of a diaconal ordination.<br /><br />As far as what deacons can or can't do in the Roman Church is their problem. These matters are largely at the discretion of their bishops. Even female deacons apparently poured the water during baptisms back in the days when candidates were "in the buff." But I still don't accept that these "deacons" were acting in the Holy Office. A bishop was doing the baptizing using their hands to protect modesty.<br /><br />Besides, in the RCC, diaconal ordination is considered sacramental holy orders, and he cannot carry out his ministry without pastoral oversight - which is different than our version of an associate pastor.<br /><br />To be honest, I'd rather have vicars ordained into the presbyterial office itself than have them doing what many of them are doing now. Many churches around the world still use "curates" - ordained men who are serving a sort-of internship with a senior pastor. That would be far better than the train-wreck we have today.Rev. Larry Beanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705910892752648940noreply@blogger.com