Yes we profess that - it’s in the creeds.
Ben, you are paying way to much for attention.Yes we profess that - it’s in the creeds.
It’s generally not an exclusive claim - we generally view the OHCAC as where the Gospel is proclaimed and the Sacraments are administered.
From an outsider’s viewpoint, it may look like a silly claim - our church has issues, our liturgy is a mess, and our numbers as small. Yet those things have nothing to do with our strength and refuge in Christ and Him crucified.
As I understand it, the larger sticking point among Catholics to our claim is Apostolic Succession - in that while we desire it as a continuation of the Western Church, we’re content with holding to the apostolic teaching of the historic church.
I certain there will be wiser Lutherans on this forum that will expand on this - I just wanted to get my $.02 in so it looks like I’m paying attention
Yup! Ben pretty much nailed it. We confess and profess the Faith as recorded in the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
In big, heavy books. Luckily, the Book of Concord weighs a lot less on the Internet: bookofconcord.org/
Well, you can read for yourself. Rome responded in the Confutation to the Augsburg Confession: bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php
Thank you for the helpful links. I’ll check them out.
I’m assuming, then, that Lutherans believe Catholics are also a part of this church?
Is the OHCAC visible? or invisible?
To clarify - does Lutheranism hold to be the continuation of the Western Church, or simply to hold beliefs of Apostolic origin? (It seems you are saying the latter)
They certainly can be, and most likely are. Even if your communion clouds the Gospel and places heavy packs on men’s shoulders.
Yes, to both. Many Lutherans hold that the Western catholic church separated at Trent. The most faithful ones (Lutherans) just happened to lose the house (the Bishopric of Rome) in the divorce. At least, that’s one way it can be inadequately explained.
Not necessarily. We don’t really concern ourselves with other communion’s methods of maintaining proper ordinations unless it affects us. But to answer your question, Apostolic Succession is, as our Confessions state, a good means to maintain order and ensure that the Apostolic faith is transferred from one generations of called and ordained shepherds to the next. But it is not necessary - it is the faith that matters, not who tagged whom. We typically practice a presbyter ordination, a rite which was practiced in the ancient church (and even in the Roman Church, at times). Our ordinations still call for the laying on of hands from surrounding bishops (pastors).
Yes. To both. It is made visible where the Sacraments are rightly administered and the Word preached.
How can Lutherans claim to be the faithful continuation of the Church yet be out of communion with the Bishop of Rome? Isn’t such a claim contrary to Scripture as well as history and tradition?
So Lutherans do accept the Apostolic authority of Catholic bishops, and also admit to not having Apostolic Succession? I understand that you argue Apostolic Succession is not necessary for valid ordinations - but if one Church does have this Succession, why would you want to be separate from it?
If I may chime in.
There are many Lutherans that claim apostolic succession, and I don’t believe it would be a Church dividing issue.
Why are Lutherans today not in full Communion with either the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches? As to historically or traditionally - any Orthodox will tell you that the ideal is that they were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, had Rome not fallen out of Communion with them (their perspective). Do Lutherans believe Rome fell out of Communion with them, and not the other way around?
Do the one’s who claim it necessary commune fully with those who claim it unnecessary?
Doctrine.
And I would agree, and actually said so,*I think we can claim to be a faithful continuation of the Church without the requirement of communion with the Bishop of Rome, much as we’d like that to be the case. *
Anytime there is a schism, it is two way. Yes, we fell out of communion with them, and they with us.
Not at this point, and I wouldn’t expect them to. Again, a matter of dialogue, but keep in mind there have been times and circumstances in history where Catholic priests were ordained through presbyter ordination.
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION
We removed “catholic” from the creeds and replaced it with “Christian”.
Orthodox claim to be as such, but are also out of communion with the bishop of Rome. Rome even acknowledges their claim as well. Being in communion with the bishop of Rome is irrelevant to someone’s membership in the church. Although it helps to be out of communion with him because the bishop of Rome has been teaching serious error for centuries.
We accept the apostolic nature of all Christians, regardless of denomination.
True, but the Orthodox seem to recognize the important role of the Bishop of Rome, and profess that ideally they would be in communion with him. They see that the Bishop of Rome has a place of primacy. Why would you want to be out of communion with the pope when Christ himself established the office? How do you reconcile the Scriptures, and the 1500 years of Catholic history (at the time of Luther) that attested to the necessity and primacy of the Bishop of Rome? What of Christ’s promise to Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?
But do you accept the Apostolic Succession of Catholic Bishops? Do you accept that there is an unbroken chain going all the way back to the Apostles? If not, why? And if you do, why wouldn’t you want to be in communion with those bishops?