LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 16-17, 1974, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

1.

Except for the fact that the Saskatoon graduates are not eligible for placement, the
Commission on Constitutional Matters finds nothing unconstitutional in the May 3, 1974
resolution of the Council of Presidents .regarding the placement of ministerial candidates.

2.

The Commission holds that the final determination of certification of the Seminex graduates
for the holy ministry must remain with the 801 faculty, as set forth in the resolution.

3.

Otherwise the determination as to whether the "Seminex" students meet the requirements of
Bylaw 4.15 a, 1 and 2 is a ministerial and discretionary act on the part of the Board of Control
and/or faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 801 DeMun. It is not within the province of
the Commission on Constitutional Matters to review and to evaluate such ministerial and
discretionary functions.

136. A Challenge to Council of Presidents' Resolution on Seminex* (Ag. 603): In answer to a similar
challenge from Rev. Walter J. Hoffmann of Olivette, Missouri the Commission ruled as follows:
1.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters refers you to the enclosed opinion in the hope that
it will satisfactorily meet your concerns.

2.

Furthermore, the Commission holds that the important considerations are the successful
completion of a synodically prescribed course of study and endorsement of the graduate as
being qualified in every respect for the holy ministry. Such determinations are' as indicated in
the enclosed ruling, ministerial and discretionary functions of the Board of Control and/or
faculty of the institution.

3.

A diploma from a seminary not recognized by the Synod as one of its seminaries is not
acceptable for meeting the requirements of Bylaw 4.15 a, 1.

137. Remaining Dissen Questions (Ag. 534): The Commission now took up the remaining questions of
Rev. Dissen's letter of February 22, 1974 which the Commission had not as yet answered. It now gave the
following replies to questions 3 and 5:
3.
4.

5.

"If your answer to the first questions is 'no,' then what is the proper procedure for filing a
protest and dealing with District Presidents who violate Handbook procedures?"
Answer: The CCM hesitates to make a ruling at this time until a specific fact situation is
brought to its attention alleging that a District President has in fact acted unilaterally in the
placement of a candidate.
"Under whose disciplinary realm does a 'student in exile' fall? Is he under the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the home congregation or must disciplinary procedures originate elsewhere?"
Answer: He is under the jurisdiction of the congregation in which he holds membership.

138. Protests Against Ruling Re Seminex Candidates (Ag. 567, 5_6_7 A to X): The Commission took
note of the letters of protest which the Commission had received regarding its ruling re the ineligibility of
Seminex candidates for placement in the church without further provisions, and ratified the replies which
the Secretary had sent in each instance.
139. Commendation Re Seminex Rulings (Ag. 572, 572 A to J): The Commission also took note of the
letters of commendation and ratified the replies sent by the Secretary.