← Research LibraryExact extracted unit
Indexed source
THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911
Available for full-text research. Open the source to inspect original-language passages and page references.
VerificationThe full text is searchable; full source verification is not yet recorded.
Citation checksNo verified references are recorded yet
Research profileNot current yet
Text fragment 171 (not an original page number)
Unit 171 of 984. Only the selected source passage is shown.
oubtful). Further
4) the “episcopal” Methodist Church of North America (without claim
to apostolic succession in the Catholic sense of the term: Wesley, himself
only an Anglican presbyter who recognized only the Anglican Church,
ordained the first bishop for America out of necessity) and a few others.
The Roman and Greek churches, for whatever reasons, do not recognize
the succession of the first two above-named churches in spite of the fact
that those churches believe they can prove it, since some of their bishops
joined the Reformation.
We cannot see anything else in ordination than the prayerful
confirmation of the person being ordained in his position, to which he
has been called upon the desire of the congregation, by the man (or men)
which the congregation deems most appropriate according to the
apostolic example, not order. Otherwise we would reach the point where
it would be necessary to create a tradition, that is, prove an apostolic
succession, and then create a “Mennonite succession,” accept it at face
value, and raise it to the level of an article of faith! Menno is quite silent
regarding this matter: apparently it did not concern him (as also the
form of baptism, even though he rigorously demanded the presence of
faith before baptism, without which baptism has no meaning for
him— cf. XX: “Baptism” etc.). Menno cannot therefore be called for a
canonization of ordination (or for a particular form of baptism).
B. The Tsar’s Gracious Visit to the Molotschna Mennonite
Colony 83
(Taken from Abram Kroeker’s Familien-Kalender, 1900 [Family Almanac
1900] in a free rendering, partially abbreviated and partially supple-
mented.)
a) The Rev. David Hiebert, Lindenau (founded in 1804/05),
great-grandfather of the Almanac's author, relates the following in a
manuscript he left behind:
Four weeks before the 21st of May, 1818, the day on which His
Majesty, the “blessed” Emperor Alexander I, arrived, an officer from
174
IN RUSSIA 1789-1860
Orechov, a small country town in the District of Berdiansk, came to
Hiebert’s house and said to his wife that the emperor would breakfast
with them. This appeared well-nigh unbelievable to them. After eight days
the same officer returned and ordered that four hundred horses be made
ready for the imperial procession. The colony’s administrative office in
Halbstadt issued one order after another to clean and beautify houses,
yards and gardens. The necessary quota of horses was met through daily
requisitions (and although His Majesty graciously recognized the zeal of
the Mennonites, he would be driven only by Russians). The streets were
swept and decorated with sand and flowers. Guards stopped everyone
who wanted to drive or ride on them. The weather was beautiful the day
His Majesty arrived and “a great crowd had gathered in order to see our
noble monarch.” The Mennonites were stationed in a row on the left side
of the street, the Lutherans from the neighbori
Source excerpts
[THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911. Книга представляет документальную историю Меннонитской братской общины в России (1789-1910), основанную на архивных материалах, собранных автором за 25 лет. Автор, П. М. Фризен, со] P. M. FRIESEN OTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA ( 1789 - 1910 ) P. M. Friesen THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA ( 1789 - 1910 ) How do you write the history of a movement when you are still a part of that movement? Whom do you believe when leading participants in those historical events disagree strongly not only on why things happened, but also on what happen- ed? What imparts the ring of truth to a denominational history? For P. M. Friesen the answer was a documentary history, letting the record speak for itself. Gathering historical docu- ments ov…