A Question for Lutherans - One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

[JonNC]

You may be very surprised/ humbled some day. As the Lutheran woman pastor in the video points out, we yield to the Holy Spirit as articulated by the Pope.

And here is said articulation by Pope Francis.

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/

An Australian priest who supports the ordination of women has been excommunicated by Pope Francis.

In the first such excommunication since the new pontiff took office Fr Greg Reynolds was dismissed in a letter from the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, which stated that “the decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest.”

Archbishop Hart also told other priests in the archdiocese by letter that Fr Reynolds’s excommunication was “because of his public teaching on the ordination of women”, which are grounds for automatic excommunication.

Fr Reynolds is also a supporter of same-sex marriage and has attended rallies in favour of changing the definition of marriage. He has even reportedly presided at same-sex ceremonies.

He told National Catholic Reporter: “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done.”

In August 2011 Fr Reynolds resigned his position as a priest at two rural parishes and, after Archbishop Hart removed his priestly faculties, he founded Inclusive Catholics, a pro-female ordination and gay marriage group.

On the bolded, it seems even Catholic priests have either misunderstood Pope Francis, or have listened to the media hype.
Why would Lutherans who support female ordination expect the pope to be anymore receptive to Lutheran “female clergy”?

Jon

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why would Lutherans who support female ordination expect the pope to be anymore receptive to Lutheran “female clergy”?

Jon

I’ll bet Pope Francis is more open to Lutheran female clergy than Catholic women pretending to play Catholic priest - with Lutheran orders, Pope Francis can assume both the men and women who lead their congregations are at least well-intentioned although without valid orders; with these self-proclaimed “'catholic women ‘priests’” it’s pretty obvious they have a political agenda and no theological understanding.

 

[MaryT777]

For the LCMS… lets just say we’re so old-school that for weddings in our church we don’t even allow the “Wedding March” from Richard Wagner’s opera Lohengrin because it’s has no Gospel in it.

To be fair, there are individual churches in the ELCA that are very confession - they say within the ELCA as a witness to Christ’s gospel among those that would twist the meaning of Christ’s message.

A simple test is to ask them about gay-marriage. A more detailed question would be to ask them if the Bible is the Word of God, or if the Bible contains the Word of God.

One question that does NOT work is asking if one is a confessional Lutheran for all Lutherans, ELCA included, consider themselves confessional Lutherans true to the Lutheran confessions.

Mary.

 

[marywarfield]

I’ll bet Pope Francis is more open to Lutheran female clergy than Catholic women pretending to play Catholic priest - with Lutheran orders, Pope Francis can assume both the men and women who lead their congregations are at least well-intentioned although without valid orders; with these self-proclaimed “'catholic women ‘priests’” it’s pretty obvious they have a political agenda and no theological understanding.

Ah that is an assumption you have no way to make.
If anything, considering the ECLA has 4.8 million
members belonging to the LWF and most recently
the LWF ordained one woman in Chile and another
in Kansas City apparently, there is no reason to
assume Lutheran women are less politically
motivated than Catholic.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ah that is an assumption you have no way to make.
If anything, considering the ECLA has 4.8 million
members belonging to the LWF and most recently
the LWF ordained one woman in Chile and another
in Kansas City apparently, there is no reason to
assume Lutheran women are less politically
motivated than Catholic.

Politics is their theology, and always has been to one degree or another, so at least they are being consistent.

 

[marywarfield]

Politics is their theology, and always has been to one degree or another, so at least they are being consistent.

Touché good point.

 

[benjohnson]

One question that does NOT work is asking if one is a confessional Lutheran for all Lutherans, ELCA included, consider themselves confessional Lutherans true to the Lutheran confessions.

Mary.

Sadly, you’re quite correct.

I’ve heard the rationalization for this behavior is that they are ‘Confessional’ as long as the Confessions reflect scripture. Then you have to drill deeper and ask what they think of scripture and they say that contains the word of God as opposed to “is the word of God.”

Even more sadly, this idea isn’t just confined to wayward Lutherans.

 

[spina1953]

If you could accept this:

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence ( aspasmon kai timhtikhn proskunh - sin ), not indeed that true worship of faith ( latreian >) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever.”

Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries,[1] if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.

The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images ! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic

We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about. idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols.

Many years to the Emperors, etc., etc.

fordham.edu/halsall/source/nicea2-dec.asp

If you can accept such a decree, I won’t say anything further. But I believe no protestant church can accept such a decree. Except for really high church Anglicans but even that’s a stretch. I think ultimately if you were to accept Nicea 2, Luther would have to be rejected.

Hi Ignatian Philo: I agree! great Post and information.

 

[spina1953]

Wow. Wow. The WELS document!!! Um boy I have
not been acting attention I guess!
Is the ELCA a very large denomination? Includes the
European groups mentioned above does?

I’m glad the WELS document agreed with me on
Scripture. I was afraid my bias against Protestantism
was in the way but really- there’s no consideration
of Scripture in the ELCA doc. Lots of references to
Luther though as an authority.

However whatever devil is in action is showing
his face in the Catholic Church as well. We have new
Churches all over the U.S. claiming to be Catholic
but independant with the same thinking actually
as the ECLA. Sort of a “New Age” Catholicism
or something.
They support gay marriage women priests- basically
anything disallowed by Rome is a positive good in
so far as these Churches go.
Most amazing.

Hi marywarfield: You sure hit the nail on the head with your post. Good work on your part.

 

[JonNC]

** I’ll bet Pope Francis is more open to Lutheran female clergy than Catholic women pretending to play Catholic priest - with Lutheran orders, Pope Francis can assume both the men and women who lead their congregations are at least well-intentioned although without valid orders;** with these self-proclaimed “'catholic women ‘priests’” it’s pretty obvious they have a political agenda and no theological understanding.

Perhaps, but confessional Lutherans are not, as validity is important to us, irrespective of our differing view of it from yours.
As for a political agenda, it is the political agenda that is most aggravating about the ELCA, for it seems everything they decide to do has politics written all over it. I have friends and family still in the ELCA, and many of them remain confessional, orthodox Lutherans. God bless them for fighting the fight.

Jon

 

[steido01]

I just remembered a source that may be helpful to non-Lutherans looking for a bit more theological “meat” about Lutheran understanding of ‘church.’

The Altenburg Theses highlight the sense many Lutherans have of polity and understanding ‘church,’ and also how that term is applied.

Various defenses of these theses can be found online.

 

[Erich]

If I asked you for directions to “the orthodox church”, where would you send me?

Assuming you were to ask me in person or over the phone (and not via email or text message), I would hear it as a request for directions to “the Orthodox Church” – and so I’d ask you what “flavor” of Orthodox you were looking for (i.e. Antiochan, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.) since we have all of those where I live.

 

[Novocastrian]

Assuming you were to ask me in person or over the phone (and not via email or text message), I would hear it as a request for directions to “the Orthodox Church” – and so I’d ask you what “flavor” of Orthodox you were looking for (i.e. Antiochan, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.) since we have all of those where I live.

Ok, that’s what everyone would expect you to do. But do you think that involves surrendering your right to call the Roman Catholic church ‘orthodox’? Because if it doesn’t, then, by anaology, neither does our sending someone to a Roman Catholic church involve surrendering our claim to Catholicism!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

All right, time to respond

I think in comparing apostolic succession to the world’s “longest game of tag” is a bit demeaning to the church which has valued it since the beginning until the current time. The question is this, does one have the authority in the first century to establish church without the apostles? No protestant I know has ever said “Yes” to the question. What does answering no imply? It implies directly that you need to be affirmed in the faith by those accredited by God to fulfil an office. Lutherans have this today in their church, although their succession is not apostolic, it is by their own admission by the faith they have.

The second question is to ask “could one in the second century after the death of the last apostle,” simply declare oneself a church away from the established churches? This is where Protestants begin to trip up, some saying yes and others saying no. I would like the Lutherans to answer this question. It will be obvious where I am taking the argument after this point, but it will make the issue of apostolic succession and how important it is within the ancient churches evident to all. This is the only legitimate means of maintaining orthodoxy. It has not prevented heretical movements, but it has always shown where the true church is, whenever Gnostic, Montanist and other such groups have dared to appear to claim to be the true church. They all failed, the church lives on.

I am rather puzzled at the Lutheran affirmation of monasticism, relics, veneration of the saints and the icons and etc. I was sure that they rejected such practices. Maybe we need to go into further detail. Can a Lutheran as an act of reverence kiss the icon of the Virgin Mary? What about kissing the priest’s hand? Do Lutheran’s call their priests father? If you advocate monasticism is it a form of monasticism recognisable to Orthodox or Catholic believers? Can you pray to the Virgin Mary to help you and pray for you? If you accept all of these things, there is only one question to be asked. “Why are you not Orthodox then?”

So we are now back onto the central point, what is the apostolic, catholic, one and Holy church? I maintain it must be found in either Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy and none other. Apostolic succession is key to the question to of apostolicity, so I need not go beyond what I have just written. I will however ask the Lutherans if in the Nicene Creed they meant succession by faith, and if you accept the canons of Nicea and the other seven ecumenical councils. Would you admit that your own priests, a good deal of them at least, would be uncanonical? In that to establish a Bishop for instance one requires three Bishops. Or would you argue the circumstances make for an acceptable breach of the canon? Would the fathers of Nicea have agreed that fiath was all that was needed to ordain someone? I do not think so.

I think the next important issue is oneness. What is oneness beyond the brotherhood of the churches in communion? At the time it was Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, the churches of Greece and Asia minor and north Africa and maybe Britain. Did the fathers allow for the church to be located anywhere else except in the communion of these churches? Could there for instance be a true church with no ties to the other churches and yet was dogmatically orthodox? Could that be considered the One church? I do not think so.

These are some points that need to be addressed.

 

[Topper17]

All right, time to respond

I think in comparing apostolic succession to the world’s “longest game of tag” is a bit demeaning to the church which has valued it since the beginning until the current time. The question is this, does one have the authority in the first century to establish church without the apostles? No protestant I know has ever said “Yes” to the question. What does answering no imply? It implies directly that you need to be affirmed in the faith by those accredited by God to fulfil an office. Lutherans have this today in their church, although their succession is not apostolic, it is by their own admission by the faith they have.

The second question is to ask “could one in the second century after the death of the last apostle,” simply declare oneself a church away from the established churches? This is where Protestants begin to trip up, some saying yes and others saying no. I would like the Lutherans to answer this question. It will be obvious where I am taking the argument after this point, but it will make the issue of apostolic succession and how important it is within the ancient churches evident to all. This is the only legitimate means of maintaining orthodoxy. It has not prevented heretical movements, but it has always shown where the true church is, whenever Gnostic, Montanist and other such groups have dared to appear to claim to be the true church. They all failed, the church lives on.

I am rather puzzled at the Lutheran affirmation of monasticism, relics, veneration of the saints and the icons and etc. I was sure that they rejected such practices. Maybe we need to go into further detail. Can a Lutheran as an act of reverence kiss the icon of the Virgin Mary? What about kissing the priest’s hand? Do Lutheran’s call their priests father? If you advocate monasticism is it a form of monasticism recognisable to Orthodox or Catholic believers? Can you pray to the Virgin Mary to help you and pray for you? If you accept all of these things, there is only one question to be asked. “Why are you not Orthodox then?”

So we are now back onto the central point, what is the apostolic, catholic, one and Holy church? I maintain it must be found in either Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy and none other. Apostolic succession is key to the question to of apostolicity, so I need not go beyond what I have just written. I will however ask the Lutherans if in the Nicene Creed they meant succession by faith, and if you accept the canons of Nicea and the other seven ecumenical councils. Would you admit that your own priests, a good deal of them at least, would be uncanonical? In that to establish a Bishop for instance one requires three Bishops. Or would you argue the circumstances make for an acceptable breach of the canon? Would the fathers of Nicea have agreed that fiath was all that was needed to ordain someone? I do not think so.

I think the next important issue is oneness. What is oneness beyond the brotherhood of the churches in communion? At the time it was Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, the churches of Greece and Asia minor and north Africa and maybe Britain. Did the fathers allow for the church to be located anywhere else except in the communion of these churches? Could there for instance be a true church with no ties to the other churches and yet was dogmatically orthodox? Could that be considered the One church? I do not think so.

These are some points that need to be addressed.

Excellent post IP! I look foreword to seeing the answers to your questions.

God Bless You IP, Topper

 

[benjohnson]

All right, time to respond

I think in comparing apostolic succession to the world’s “longest game of tag” is a bit demeaning to the church which has valued it since the beginning until the current time.

Ok… you caught me. I’ll probably stop saying that.

The trouble with strict laying-of-hands as proof of Apostolic Succession is that in the grand scheme of things, there almost has to be a line of Bishops that didn’t have the correct form, or were scoundrels, or some such fault, and the strict requirement would turn us into Novatianists.

And even if offered in proof - modern people demand records, and I understand it, those records are not available.

Laying-of-hands is important indeed. But you’re probably not going to convince Lutherans that it’s penultimately important, especially as you’ve noted, that the process doesn’t always bear good fruit, and we would say good fruit has been born without it.

Maybe we need to go into further detail. Can a Lutheran as an act of reverence kiss the icon of the Virgin Mary? What about kissing the priest’s hand? Do Lutheran’s call their priests father?

Before easter Sunday, I went to a Catholic Adoration of the Cross. I kissed the cross in the procession and didn’t promptly explode.

The Lutheran objections tend to center on making these actions a requirement, or using them so much that they stray to almost worship.

You may be interested in this image from a Lutheran church:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SyroMalankara]

The trouble with strict laying-of-hands as proof of Apostolic Succession is that in the grand scheme of things, there almost has to be a line of Bishops that didn’t have the correct form, or were scoundrels, or some such fault, and the strict requirement would turn us into Novatianists.

Neither are we Massilianists or Donatists, whether the Bishop who ordained was a scoundrel or faulted personally has no bearing. The form has developed over time, but all accepted bishops held the view that the priesthood is about offering the Holy Oblation, administering Sacraments, and doing as the Church intends; in addition, the High Priesthood involves leadership and administrative oversight, as well as the fullness of Representing Christ.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Ok… you caught me. I’ll probably stop saying that.

The trouble with strict laying-of-hands as proof of Apostolic Succession is that in the grand scheme of things, there almost has to be a line of Bishops that didn’t have the correct form, or were scoundrels, or some such fault, and the strict requirement would turn us into Novatianists.

And even if offered in proof - modern people demand records, and I understand it, those records are not available.

Laying-of-hands is important indeed. But you’re probably not going to convince Lutherans that it’s penultimately important, especially as you’ve noted, that the process doesn’t always bear good fruit, and we would say good fruit has been born without it.

Before easter Sunday, I went to a Catholic Adoration of the Cross. I kissed the cross in the procession and didn’t promptly explode.

The Lutheran objections tend to center on making these actions a requirement, or using them so much that they stray to almost worship.

You may be interested in this image from a Lutheran church:

http://www.flcws.org/P1010603_edited-1web small.jpg

Curious, is the photo from a LCMS parish or an ELCA parish?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It attests to it because it was practiced by the Church before the Reformation.

Sorry, but that’s pure wishful thinking.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Minister

The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4) and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — “A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain.” A council held at Alexandria (340) declared the orders conferred by Caluthus, a presbyter, null and void (Athanas., “Apol. contra Arianos”, ii). For the custom said to have existed in the Church of Alexandria see EGYPT. Nor can objection be raised from the fact that chorepiscopi are known to have ordained priests, as there can be no doubt that some chorepiscopi were in bishops’ orders (Gillman, “Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient,” Munich, 1903; Hefele-Leclercq, “Conciles”, II, 1197-1237). No one but a bishop can give any orders now without a delegation from the pope, but a simple priest may be thus authorized to confer minor orders and the subdiaconate. It is generally denied that priests can confer priests’ orders, and history, certainly, records no instance of the exercise of such extraordinary ministry. The diaconate cannot be conferred by a simple priest, according to the majority of theologians. This is sometimes questioned, as Innocent VIII is said to have granted the privilege to Cistercian abbots (1489), but the genuineness of the concession is very doubtful. For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization (see below).

So, to hang your hat on something that has always been denied based upon one “very doubtful” claim is the very definition of dubious.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry, but that’s pure wishful thinking.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

So, to hang your hat on something that has always been denied based upon one “very doubtful” claim is the very definition of dubious.

Hi FKB,
According to the Catholic website, the events are doubtful. According to the Lutheran website, the accounts are historically accurate.
But when we look back at the early beginnings of the Church, presbyter ordination, by necessity, was the norm.

Jon