Well, it’s only binding on some Lutherans. In the Church of Norway, which became Lutheran in 1537, only the three ecumenical (Western) Creeds, the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism is binding. The king, who inititated the Danish-Norwegian Reformation didn’t want to be part of the debates on the continent and therefore he only included two (early) Lutheran documents, thank God!
While I’m sure that there are earnest Lutherans in The People’s Church, I’m not sure that the body itself can be categorized as recognizably Lutheran in its practices or in its agreements with other communions, despite whatever portion of the Lutheran Reformation it historically may have accepted. What I’m saying, with respect, is that a body can’t be partially Lutheran.
Nor can a body be partially Catholic, despite whatever portion of the Original Church it may have historically accepted.
Just for reference, the Anglican Church has a similar view. Personally I would tend to prefer that a Christian be (conservative) Anglican, RC, Orthodox or Lutheran, etc (the latter, my apologies for what might seem as crassness, as a distant fourth). I have no problem however, with associating with a multitude of “mere Christians” (to use C. S. Lewis’ term) though, and I’m too much of a sad example of a sinful person to be in the business of sitting on a high horse in the “more legit than thou” game.
Nor can a body be partially Catholic, despite whatever portion of the Original Church it may have historically accepted.
Well played, Steve.To be clear. I am part of the Church of Norway, but I’m opposed to the ordination of women, to homosexual ‘marriage’ and to ordination for practicing homosexuals. This is ‘perfectly’ acceptable in the Church of Norway, and on June 15 I will be ordained priest.While I’m sure that there are earnest Lutherans in The People’s Church, I’m not sure that the body itself can be categorized as recognizably Lutheran in its practices or in its agreements with other communions, despite whatever portion of the Lutheran Reformation it historically may have accepted. What I’m saying, with respect, is that a body can’t be partially Lutheran.
By the way, welcome to CAF! Glad to have a European among us Colonists.
This is where it becomes apparant that there is a difference of terminology. The Orthodox doesn’t regard it as a dogma either – but they would equally claim that it could be damnable to deny it. Orthodox use ‘dogma’ almost exclusively with things directly concerning the person of Christ and the Trinity, but Catholic, AFAIK, use ‘dogma’ to mean something true and revealed, and not just things directly concerning the person of Christ and the Trinity. I say that if it is true we ought to hold to it, simply because God wants us not only to be saved, but also to follow truth.
Welcome KjetilK; great to have more European expression.
I’m curious about this. On the one hand, you reference Smalcald to defend, rightfully, the ever Virgin, but on the other hand you reject the validity of presbyter ordination, which was also maintained by the Reformers, and defended in the Apology. Why the apparent dichotomy?
Thank you for this. It is insightful, and hopefully out non-Lutheran friends gain some insight on how Lutherans historically understand Marian beliefs.
Forgive me if I misunderstand, but are you insinuating that your communion was absent pastors to properly administer Word and Sacrament for years?
I understand that AS is the preferred method of ordination (and agree wholeheartedly), but to deny that presbyter ordination is “valid” would deny the ordinations of your own communion, communions with which you share full fellowship, the early church (which knew only presbyter ordination!) – and Confessio Augustana. How can you possibly reconcile rejection of presbyter ordination with Article XVI? On a related note, two questions: 1)Does your communion consider the Apology as binding? 2)Is your subscription to the Confessions of a quia or quatenus nature?Did you not read the last part? I reject the Smalcald articles as binding, but referenced them to point out that this was held by Luther. It was for historical reference. And I referenced it since benjohnson clearly sees them as binding. And if they are binding on him, then he must believe in the immaculate conception lest he reject the creeds which the LCMS holds fast to. My further point was that ‘dogma’ or ‘doctrine’ has a somewhat ‘broader’ sense in the Roman Catholic Church, referring to true beliefs in general. ‘Dogma’ (coming from Gk. δόγμα, ‘opinion, tenet’) simply means teaching. And the teachings are then arranged by how certain they are. According to the Catholic Church, this is de fide, certain, and must be believed. The reason is not, as we see in the Eastern Orthodox use of ‘dogma,’ that it is very important in regards to Christology or Trinitarian doctrine, but simply that it is true. And every Lutheran who holds to the Smalcald articles must believe it, since it right there in the text. The question, then, seems to be one of terminology.
I didn’t say that. We lost apostolic succession, but we had bishops from the start.
Three points:
(1) No, in the Church of Norway the only binding texts, outside Scripture, are the three ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession, and Luther’s Small Catechism.
Yes, I did, and that was why I was curious
I would agree, particularly since it is further confirmed in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. Not speaking about Ben here, but I generally do not understand why Lutherans would not believe it
I get that.
So, here’s my question, hopefully better phrased so you don’t think I’m attacking your position, because I’m not; Luther and the Reformers believed that presbyter ordination, under the circumstances of Bishops withholding ordination, citing the Cistercian abbots of a century earlier using presbyter ordination (with the pope’s blessing), and the fact that in the early Church, initially all clergy were one order, presbyter. From this position of scripture and Tradition, I was simply wondering why you would therefore be willing to cite the Apology and Tradition in defense of presbyter ordination.
That’s a blessing. I know you said you opposed women’s ordination. Do you think that calls into question the validity of your communion’s orders in any way?
Certainly, in our communion, those are the primary
You do understand that this is not a doctrine, as the charge is historically conditional. In many ways, however, I see no further need of the charge, myself.
But if it was with the pope’s blessing, would it really count as presbyter ordination in the same way that Luther and the first Reformers saw it? And in the Catholic Church, abbots have certain rights that normal parish priests do not have. I recognise that my position puts me in a place of disagreement with our Reformer, but I don’t think his, or the Reformers’ words are law. I could perhaps admit that presbyter ordination would be OK if, and only if, it was approved by a bishop, archbishop or above. That, of course, means that I do not recognise the orders of some free church Lutheran pastors.
No, not necessarily. It means, of course, that I do not recognise the validity of the ordinations of men ordained by women bishops, but I try carefully not to slip into Donatism.
Yes, but aren’t the rest of the Book of Concord also canonically binding in the LCMS?
I haven’t read much of him, so I couldn’t say much. But I do have a friend who wrote his master’s thesis on the new Finnish interpretation of Luther, if I recall correctly. It could be online somewhere, but it is probably written in Norwegian.
I might add the only reason it doesn’t matter to you is that if did matter, the Lutheran church project falls apart. I think my original example remains valid in this regard. Who would dare start a church when the apostles were walking around without their permission, without being raised to the position to shepherd the community? Only a Gnostic heretic would dare such a thing.
Yes. The pastors from surrounding churches in the district (dioceses) are present for the ordination and the laying on of hands. This is done to confirm that the Apostolic Teaching has been maintained in the church’s calling of the qualified men to the ministry. The act is certainly not superfluous. Here is where it should be noted that Lutherans generally, like the early church, understand only one ‘tier’ of priests to exist - each pastor functions as bishop in his locality. So Lutheran pastors are typically confirmed by around 10 or 12 bishops, not just 3.
More below.Yes, I did mean Article XIV. Sorry for the typo! I can tell you know where I’m going with this, though, so I’m anxious to learn your response. Correct, the brief text in this Article does not explicitly state who calls, but this is because it was unanimously understood among the Lutheran Reformers that it is the church who calls men to administer Word and Sacrament, and it is the church -in general- who therefore holds the power to ordain. What I’m saying is that words must not be interpreted in a vacuum, but rather in the intention of the Reformers. In the Apology, Article XIV is explained clearly - that the polity and grades of the church are simply human-made (though certainly useful, desired and prescribed by the fathers!).
Thank you for the clarification, and your patience with my misunderstanding. I think I understand your position.
As has been noted, all presbyters in the early church were of one ‘tier.’
Thank you. I had guessed as much, but I wanted to make sure without presumption.
Without much information, I understand that the Church of Sweden/ Finland never lost apostolic succession nor have Lutheran Orders ever been questioned by Rome where apostolic succession was maintained. St Olaf as well as other saints rest in Lutheran cathedrals.