The United Methodist Council of Bishops recently adopted guidelines for granting deacons sacramental authority under certain circumstances during a meeting earlier this month.
-
(Photo: UMNS/Mike DuBose)The Rev. Sharon Rubey, director of candidacy and conference relations for the United Methodist Board Higher Education and Ministry, prepares to serve Holy Communion April 23 during opening worship at the denomination's 2008 General Conference in Fort Worth, Texas.
Under the approved guidelines, to be effective in January, bishops have the authority to allow deacons to administer Holy Communion and perform baptisms based on their interpretation of a new sentence in the United Methodist “Book of Discipline” on the ministry of deacon.
The new sentence in Paragraph 328 of the “Book of Discipline” on the responsibility of the deacon reads: “For the sake of extending the mission and ministry of the church, a pastor-in-charge or district superintendent may request that the Bishop grant local sacramental authority to the deacon to administer the sacraments in the absence of an elder, within a deacon’s primary appointment.”
In other words, it is up to bishops’ discretion whether the circumstance warrants the need for a deacon to administer the sacrament.
The new language, explained the bishops in the Nov. 2 to 7 meeting, is an attempt to take into account extraordinary missional reasons that justify exceptions to general church practice.
UM bishops note, however, that the new sentence “does not fundamentally change the sacramental privileges of the order of deacons,” according to the United Methodist News Service.
The Rev. Jerome King Del Pino, the top executive of the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry, fears that the new sentence will be an obstacle for future implementation of provisions after an extensive study on related issues is released in 2012.
A 28-member Commission to Study Ministry is examining the theological, ecclesial and practical grounds of the church’s system of lay, licensed and ordained ministry. The commission will present its findings with legislation proposal at the 2012 General Conference.
Del Pino urges the council “to take a strong minimalist approach to implementing this truly extraordinary innovation that has been introduced into our church order,” so that practices can still be reversed if necessary after the study commission finishes its work.
RSS
_2.jpg)
Many of the things that the RCC teach are antiscriptural, and errant. I pray that their false doctrines aren't enough to keep them from their eternal reward.
Tallguy,
I too apologize if you thought I questioned your relationship with Christ; however, I cannot apologize for exposing doctrinal positions that are not mentioned in/contradicts the Word of God.
Tallguy,
None of my posts ever said you were not a Christian; my disagreement is with some of the doctrinal positions that Catholicism adheres to. I have never used the words blasphemers or Pharisees when disagreeing with you or anyone else. Was I a blasphemer when I asked you to pray for certain family members of mine and was I a Pharisee when I fasted and prayed for your loved ones?
You should not allow theological disagreements to be taken so personally. If you reflect back; many of these passionate discussions take place when someone proclaims the RCC church as the one true church; are we not at liberty to disagree?
forgiven, thanks and I sensed you did but also know I appreciated the work you did in defining those terms, believer
tallguy, I don't believe that I have ever said you were not a Christian, but if I've even inferred it please accept my apology. As for us jumping on catholics whether you mean to or not you SOMETIMES tend to be a bit antagonistic and haughty towards those of us who are not catholic and tend to bait us and we take the bait. I personally have no problems with catholics and consider many of them close friends, Mom, aunts, uncles, and cousins, but I do have a hard time with many of the extrabiblical teachings of the catholic church and to be honest I do enjoy challenging them as I know you enjoy doing the same with some of the teachings in our churches. But I do consider you a brother in Christ and would never attack you personally, but if my intensity and passion on an issue comes accross that way please call me on it.
Oh and Believer, thank you.
Believer, I'm not trying to be mean spirited by any measure. I'm just tired you you fellas trying to tell me that I'm not Christian because I'm Catholic. Spend 24 hours with me, I'm sure you'll find out that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our Christian faith.
Why is is that anytime the word Catholic shows up in the title of any post here you guys have to jump all over it? Don't you have anything else to defend? Shouldn't you be in India right now defending Christians instead?
Believer, I understood you quite well and agree.
When the word "presbtyr" is used it appears as bishop, overseer, elder, or leader, but never as priest in the following translations, KJV, NKJV, CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NCV, Amplified, NLT, and Message. Even though I don't see all of these as reliable translations I do find it interesting that none of them used the word priest other then in those verses referring to the Old Testament office of High Priest, to Christ as High Priest, or to the priesthood of the believer.
There is unity in the diversity of denominations. They are (almost) all part of the same body. That is, the Church. Intramural issues aside, I consider every single one of them my brethren and would lay down my life for them. In spite of the diversity, God is faithful to preserve within His Church the core doctrines that constitute the Truth. That different denomination disagree on intramural issues does no injustice to the organic quality of the body, nor its apostolic foundation. Even the apostles had their disagreements. We uniformly proclaim our belief and faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus Christ is the Head. We are the body. Whether or not you agree with this does nothing to the fact of its truth. Pointing out the problems with the Church brings nothing new to light... Yes, we are aware of the tares! Thank you. Even in your disagreement you will meet Christ very soon. 60 years, 1 year, 5 minutes... like a thief in the night... The RCC is everything we have always been warned about by Jesus and the apostles. Even this kind of discussion should not surprise us. Brethren, keep on contending for the faith, ONCE delivered to the saints!
tallguy, what's up with this mean-spiritedness, if what's taught in the catechism is biblically solid just let it stand on its own merit?
forgiven, thanks for your post, but please realize I'm not talking to the meaning of the word but to the use of the word and in all the reliable translations of the Bible when that word is used it is speaking to the office of elder in the Church it is not used to classify a distinct group of individuals who are somehow spiritually superior to the other members of the Church and Christians in general. Unlike the catholic church and perhaps the episcopal church teaches they are not mediators between God and man since there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ alone. Plus as the Scriptures clearly teach every Christian is a part of the priesthood of believers.
Tallguy,
So, do you deny that the Holy Spirit dwells in every believer?
I have already shared with you my friend that the message was taken from Revelation 13; can you explain this chapter?
Of course you don't depend on a pastor, that's the whole problem with protestantism. Everyone is his own preacher and you all seem to "hear clearly from the Holy Spirit", yet there are 34,000 protestant denominations. You "hear from the Holy Spirit" one way, the guy sitting next to you "hears from the Holy Spirit" another way, and the pastor "hears from the Holy Spirit" a third way. You blasphemers! The Holy Spirit is NOT a toy! It's pride! You all puff your chests out like holy men with a direct line to God. Pharisees.
Of course in your humble opinion, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not have the ability to be guided by the Holy Spirit or know how to interpret Scripture. Only you can? We'll you're wrong!
Send me a link to you're pastor's website, I'd like to upload his message and hear what he has to say before I can rip it apart.....
Tallguy,
First, I do not depend upon a pastor as you would imagine; second, the message was Revelation 13; can you pick that apart . . . I seriously doubt it! Care to explain this chapter?
You may want to re-read our previous correspondence and see that your Catechism does indeed contradict Scripture.
Two different Greek words have traditionally been translated into English as priest (Greek was the language in which the New Testament was composed, hence its importance in understanding early Christian practice). Both words occur in the New Testament, which draws a distinction not always observed in English. The first, presbyteros (Ancient Greek: Ï
Online, can you send me the link to your pastor's message yesterday so that I can spend my morning picking it apart. Did he speak on Peter stepping out of the boat again, or how blessed you'll be if you just give a little more? I've hung out with "you" for a few years, I know it doesn't get much deeper than that. Or how about "let's bless the nation"! "There's an outpouring of the Holy Spirit"! "There's an anointing"... Yadda Yadda....
You kow the Catechism is a well written manual. Why are you wasting your time trying to pick it apart? Spend your time more constructivly in praise and worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you really want to save someone, why don't you head over to India and stop a Hindu from killing a Christian. Oh, I get it, it's much easier to just sit behind your keyboard and shoot down Catholics. Jesus said the hell would not prevail against His Church. Communism couldn't bring it down, and Online it's guaranteed that you won't either. !
Send me the link to your church....
believer, I don't need to tell anyone that they're 'wrong', but the English word 'priest' is a derivative of the Greek word 'presbyter,' and I suspect that the primary reason that it isn't so translated in many places is exactly because of the kind of prejudice revealed in yours and others' blogs here.
sj, yes! then you can call the publishers of Strong's Concordance and Vine's Dictionary and tell them why they are wrong since they don't refer to presbytr as priest.
Forgivensinner,
I agree; well said.
believer, are you just intending to be difficult? Since 'priest' is an English derivative of the Greek 'presbyter', EVERYWHERE where you find the Greek presbyter could be translated as priest in English. Do you really need me to list ALL of the appearances of 'presbyter' in the Greek New Testament?
Wow, there's alot going on in here.
As I understand the scripture regarding Jesus' discussion with Peter about His church, it was not about a literal rock (place or building). Jesus asks Peter who people say He is then asks Peter who he thought He was and Peter's confession that Jesus was the Son of God was the rock that His church would be built on. All those that confess Jesus as the Son of God and are baptized are added to His church (His body).
Now, the priests, as I understand this, too, were done away with, completed under the Old Law, at the cruxification of Jesus Christ. The only order the NT speaks to is that of elders, deacons and evangelists. Also, the Body, Jesus' church is now a royal priesthood. It is in each other that we confess our sins as well as the building up of and spurring onto good deeds.
Tallguy,(Those who's sins you forgive will be forgiven, those who's sins you retain will be retained?)
There are several problems with your interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority.
Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5, (For there is one God and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus).
(Keep up the good work in reading your Catechism! )
Actually I use the Catechism simply as a reference to demonstrate that some of its teachings contradict/supersede the Scriptures.
(That's amazing, at this rate you'll soon be home.)
This is wishful thinking . . . why would I go back when the Lord calls me to come out?
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Revelation 18:4).
Otherwise Online, keep up the good work in reading your Catechism! That's amazing, at this rate you'll soon be home.
Online, if "The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture", then what exactly was Jesus talking about when He said "Those who's sins you forgive will be forgiven, those who's sins you retain will be retained?
Pretty clear in scripture that Jesus gave authority to His priests to forgive
sj, Vines refers to presbytr as an elder, someone recognized for his gifts of leadership, wisdom, and judgement, but no where does Vines refer to an elder as a priest. So once again please cite a passage in the New Testament that uses the word priest when it does not refer to the Old Testament hiearchy, Christ as our High Priest, or the priesthood of every true believer?
believer, no, just the opposite. Everywhere where the Greek word "presbyter" is used in the New Testament, and it is used frequently in regards to the leaders of the Christian Church, it could be translated as "priest" in English, given that priest is the English derivative of presbyter.
St. John,
Perhaps you need to scroll back to the very beginning of this discussion and see how these positions have been argued; specifically the claim that only a priest can consecrate the wine/bread along with transubstantiation and its implication. How is quoting Scripture and historical facts rhetoric? Normally, the burden of proof lies in the lap of the one making the claim, right?
All throughout the Epistles it says "they broke bread together". It never says anything about an 'authority' to break the bread. People need to know that if they eat the bread and drink the cup in an unworthy manner that they are eating and drinking death onto themselves.
sj, please read the posts from chris and tallguy and you will see that the issues online is discussing are very relevant to what's been shared by others on this site.
sj, in other words there isn't any place other than the ones I referred to where the word priest is used in the New Testament, which means that it's based on extrabiblical teaching as opposed to a biblical mandate.
Online4Him, please stop your anti-Catholic rhetoric. I'm not Catholic and you are arguing against positions that haven't been argued for in this column.
believer, as noted earlier the English word 'priest' ultimately derives from the late Latin and earlier Greek word 'presbyter' which appears regularly in New Testament. cf. Origin of Priest: bef. 900; ME prest(e), priest, OE prÄ
Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a (re-sacrifice) of Christ, or a (re-offering) of Christs sacrifice-both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christs sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, (Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself). Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, (For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...) Christ's once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ's sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christs sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.
The Mass:
Again, when Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lords Supper. To read the Lords Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. According to the Bible, the Lords Supper is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28).
However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, (The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit). The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: (The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different). (And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory).
St. Johns,
Priests:
The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a (holy priesthood) and a (royal priesthood). Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as (a kingdom and priests). In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus sacrifice, we can now approach Gods throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21), and the ONLY mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) â
sj, please cite New Testament verse that use the term priest other than those that refer to either the Old Testament priests, Christ being our High Priest, and the priesthood of the believer?
sj, God's Word does not dictate how often the Lord's Supper should be observed, but it does declare what the purpose is and the right attitude and spiritual condition that a person who desires to participate should have if they are to celebrate the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner and the belief in transubstantiation is purely based on extrabiblical teaching.
Online4Him, some of us believe the words of Jesus when he said 'this is my body' and 'this is my blood', and follow the practices of the ancient Church. Meanwhile, the New Testament and early Church Fathers speak of 'priests,' the Latin form of the Greek 'presbyters' in numerous places, and to pretend that it is spoken of only in terms of all believers is being blinded by your own prejudices.
Again, where do we find Priests in the New Testament apart from the priesthood of all believers?
Rome says that when her priests break the communion bread, this is an actual reenactment of the very Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (The Mass is an unbloody re-enactment of the sacrifice of Calvary). The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Church, by Rev. John A. OBrien. p. 355 (1955). In the Mass, (Christ Is Sacrificed Again). Ibid. 354.
Is this truth or a fable? How can we find out? By the Word. The book of Hebrews is clear. Paul wrote about (the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all). Heb. 10:10. (But this Man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God) (vs. 12). (For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified) (vs. 14). Thus the Bible is clear. There is only one Sacrifice, and it occurred on the cross. Christians should put their total faith in what Jesus has already done two thousand years ago. Any teaching about another sacrifice is really a denial of what Jesus Christ has already done (once for all) (Heb. 10:10) and represents a diversion away from Christ's love and truth.
The Mass actually resembles other pagan rituals; such as Mithraism. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was (present) in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of ones god). Mithraism also had seven (sacraments), making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lords Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lords Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christs death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lords Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete. Again, is this truth or a fable; it appears to be a fable.
The Scriptures declare that the Lords Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lords Supper. To read the Lords Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted.
XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of
God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christâ
As a former reformed pastor, I know now that the Bible alone is not enough. Too many denominations all claiming to go by the bible alone and yet they all disagree on major points of doctrine. The Holy Spirit can only guide one Church into ALL truth and that is the Only Church Christ actually founded personally and made that promise to from the beginning. Outside of the Catholic Church the Holy Spirit does work within Protestant churches, but not to the fullness as promised to the original.
The Bishop of Rome and the Bishops in communion with him, have the protection of the Holy Spirit. It was only promised to these men and no others.
Protestants have reduced the body and blood of Christ at communion to a symbolic sourdough and grape juice. So sad and so far from the Truth of what the early church believed from the Apostles. The bread and wine does become the body and blood of our Lord and unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you have no Life in you.
John Wesley actually believed in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but again because of the lack of Authority through the Holy Spirit in Protestant Churches because they lack the Bishop of Rome who is guided into all truth with his fellow Bishops in communion with him, it is not surprising that now Methodists believe in a semi-presence or no presence at all. This is not my term, it is there's. Well, now that there are at least 20 different sects of Methodism who knows what the majority believe.
Without the Bishop of Rome, whom Christ chose to be the Rock where the church is built and without the power of Apostolic succession it is no wonder why year by year Protestantism becomes even more watered down in their beliefs. Today's Protestant denominations are soon to evolve into such a diverse group of believers that I will not be suprised when they ditch the doctrines that Jesus is divine, the trinity is three persons but one God, the virgin birth and the resurrection.
Look at what happens when you get to far away from the fountain of Truth in the Church founded by Christ which is the Catholic Church; first the Reformation, then the Baptists who rejected a great deal of beliefs from the Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, then came congregationalists who were baptists, Then the Seventh Day Adventists, then came UNITARIANS who deny the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the resurrection, then came the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, then Christian scientists, etc, etc. All of these last groups deny the divinity of Christ and the Trinity and they all evolved from Protestants.
Even today some Holy Spirit Pentecostals deny the divinity. With time their doctrine will be watered down and the Catholic Church will stand strong as she has always done by the power of GOD.
believer, the early Church celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday from the earliest days and believe that the bread and wine were in some way "really" the Body and Blood of Jesus as Jesus said it was. This pre-transubstantiation position is a very long way from Zwingli's Memorialism, adopted after the Reformation by so many Protestant denominations.
tallguy, and the purpose of your cheap shot is?
sj, and what were these "new understandings" you refer to?
1 Corinthians 11:23-34 "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.'" And so Christians have done since the beginning, except that after the Reformation some stopped doing it, or doing it so often, or imposed new understandings on what the Church has been doing from the beginning!
United Methodists Grant Deacons Sacramental Authority
It doesn't really matter anyway, because we all know that these protestant churches only have two real sacraments:
1 Tithing
2 Summer Camp
Argyle, drop the peganism thing because it's not true...
"semi-true presence"?
is that like "kind of" the truth but not at the sametime, so it could be like semi-fake too? This term confuses me as well, i always thought truth was absolute...
And where do we find similar rituals like Catholic Mass with sun shaped wafers with gods inside them?, certainly not in paganism...