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

[IgnatianPhilo]

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.

The question must then be asked. Why is this necessary? Why can’t everyone be a Luther and not need a Bishop?

 

[JonNC]

The question must then be asked. Why is this necessary? Why can’t everyone be a Luther and not need a Bishop?

Why were the Cistercian abbots able to ordain without a bishop in the century before the Reformation? From the Perspective of the Reformers, the bishops refused to ordain pStors needed for the churches. So they looked to historic precedent in the Church, as I mentioned in the first sentence.
It was not the route the Reformers preferred.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

KjetilK

I found this on the CoN website as an example of broken apostolic succession:

The question of apostolic legitimacy of the Bishops and the ordained ministers of the CoN had also been a burning issue just a few years before, in the struggle of the church during the Second World War. The vast majority of the ordained pastors and bishops laid down their ministry (“Embete”), as a commission given by the state, but not as an authority and calling given in their ordination (1942). The nazi-loyal government in Norway denied the legitimacy of their ministry after that. The document The Foundation of the Church (1942) claimed the full legitimacy and authority of those ordained in an apostolic way/according to the apostolic tradition (“på apostolisk vis”). For the church in opposition to the Nazis it was a matter of legitimating the ministry beyond the positive law (“den positive rett”). The Nazi-loyal government appointed substitutes for most of the bishops, and even tried - without success - to have them ordained in “the apostolic succession” by a bishop from abroad. That would, of course, not have helped to legitimize them as “rite vocatus”. Seen at this background, any agreement with the Church of England could by no means be accepted if it questioned the ordained ministers of CoN.
kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5897

The direction of the Lutheran Church can be illustrated by these photos. The first is a bishop from Norway signing the Provoo full communion with Anglicans in 1996. The second photo is my own synod bishop at the consecration of deacons. The 3-fold ministry of deacon, priest, bishop.

 

[christus_vincit]

One thing I’ve gathered from all the pictures posted is that Lutherans love the color red.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Why were the Cistercian abbots able to ordain without a bishop in the century before the Reformation? From the Perspective of the Reformers, the bishops refused to ordain pStors needed for the churches. So they looked to historic precedent in the Church, as I mentioned in the first sentence.
It was not the route the Reformers preferred.

Jon

Now that is an interesting claim. But does that one example reflect the entirety of the tradition we see in east and west? Or does it show that Cistercians were in error? I tend to think of the latter. Who is the better example for people, Luther or Saint Maximos?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

One thing I’ve gathered from all the pictures posted is that Lutherans love the color red.

Isn’t the liturgical color for ordination red? [Pentecost, the holy martyrs]

 

[KjetilK]

The direction of the Lutheran Church can be illustrated by these photos. The first is a bishop from Norway signing the Provoo full communion with Anglicans in 1996.

No, that cannot be from 1996. First, the picture is way to good. And the signing bishop is +Halvor Norhaug, the Bishop of Bjørgvin, who will be ordaining me in two weeks. He was consecrated (with an Anglican bishop as a co-consecrator) on March 8, 2009. I was there. And in 1996, the Archbishop of Canterbury was +George Carey, not +Rowan Williams. That has to be a later picture, probably from some resigning or something. Perhaps it was from October 3, 2010, when the Danish People’s Church joined the Porvoo communion.

 

[KjetilK]

One thing I’ve gathered from all the pictures posted is that Lutherans love the color red.

We, at least in Norway, use the liturgical colour of red when ordaining priests, installing priests in new ‘jobs’ and ‘similar stuff.’

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No, that cannot be from 1996. First, the picture is way to good. And the signing bishop is +Halvor Norhaug, the Bishop of Bjørgvin, who will be ordaining me in two weeks. He was consecrated (with an Anglican bishop as a co-consecrator) on March 8, 2009. I was there. And in 1996, the Archbishop of Canterbury was +George Carey, not +Rowan Williams. That has to be a later picture, probably from some resigning or something. Perhaps it was from October 3, 2010, when the Danish People’s Church joined the Porvoo communion.

Yes, I see that the Church of Norway signed Provoo in 1994.

Also understand that the Danish and Norwegian Church were closely connected historically.

 

[Irishgal49]

Do Lutherans make the claim that Lutheranism is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic? If so, how do Lutherans defend this position? How is the Lutheran position on these four characteristics comparable to the position of the Catholic Church?

My mother explained it this way (very proud Lutheran): There is a big difference between the Catholic Church being THE church established by Jesus and A church established by Jesus. She said while they believe it is A church it is not THE church. THE church, according to what she was taught was the Christian Church worldwide. I’m not arguing, I’m just saying what she told me. She also said, “The Rock” is the Confession of Jesus as Son of God, not the person. It’s his confession that establishes what constitutes a Christian not the church.

Again, just relaying info here, hope that helps.

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, I see that the Church of Norway signed Provoo in 1994.

Also understand that the Danish and Norwegian Church were closely connected historically.

Yes, but that’s not why. That picture has to be from post March 8, 2009.

 

[KjetilK]

She also said, “The Rock” is the Confession of Jesus as Son of God, not the person.

Unfortunately, that is not what the text says. The text clearly identifies the Rock with Peter, not his confession.

For a Lutheran take on that, see Hans Kvalbein, “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose,” in The Formation of the Early Church, ed., Jostein Ådna (WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005): 145-174. Kvalbein argues that Peter stand as the representative of the Church as a whole, but he acknowledges that the rock is Peter, and not his confession. We shouldn’t become some ‘anti-catholic’ that we simply disregard the actual text of the Bible.

 

[Irishgal49]

Unfortunately, that is not what the text says. The text clearly identifies the Rock with Peter, not his confession.

For a Lutheran take on that, see Hans Kvalbein, “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose,” in The Formation of the Early Church, ed., Jostein Ådna (WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005): 145-174. Kvalbein argues that Peter stand as the representative of the Church as a whole, but he acknowledges that the rock is Peter, and not his confession. We shouldn’t become some ‘anti-catholic’ that we simply disregard the actual text of the Bible.

Well “The Bible” can say whatever we want it to say. I didn’t say you or anyone else should believe it, I’m saying what she told me.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Unfortunately, that is not what the text says. The text clearly identifies the Rock with Peter, not his confession.

For a Lutheran take on that, see Hans Kvalbein, “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose,” in The Formation of the Early Church, ed., Jostein Ådna (WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005): 145-174. Kvalbein argues that Peter stand as the representative of the Church as a whole, but he acknowledges that the rock is Peter, and not his confession. We shouldn’t become some ‘anti-catholic’ that we simply disregard the actual text of the Bible.

Our confessions do indeed acknowledge that Peter was a stand in for the entire community of the apostles, and also of the Church.

Here is from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:

23] In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

24] In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]

Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles].

In the very next chapter, our Confessions acknowledge that its Peters confession, not Peter himself that the church is built on.

25] However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]

And acknowledging that this view is consistent with the Church fathers:

26] Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ. 27] [Nor does the person of a teacher add anything to this word and office; it matters not who is preaching and teaching it; if there are hearts who receive and cling to it, to them it is done as they hear and believe.] And in this way, not as referring to the person of Peter, most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, 28] Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” 29] Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.

 

[DeFuret]

No apology necessary. Sometimes, even we Lutherans feel the same.

Welcome to CAF.

Don’t worry, nobody ever lists Anglicans first, sometimes not even Anglicans.

 

[KjetilK]

In the very next chapter, our Confessions acknowledge that its Peters confession, not Peter himself that the church is built on.

But that is not what the text in Matthew says. We do not have to interpret the text the way a Roman Catholic does, but we surely have to take as our starting point the actual words of the text.

 

[Irishgal49]

Our confessions do indeed acknowledge that Peter was a stand in for the entire community of the apostles, and also of the Church.

Here is from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:

In the very next chapter, our Confessions acknowledge that its Peters confession, not Peter himself that the church is built on.

And acknowledging that this view is consistent with the Church fathers:

Thanks, I knew my mother had told me that it was the confession and not establishment of the pope. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

But that is not what the text in Matthew says. We do not have to interpret the text the way a Roman Catholic does, but we surely have to take as our starting point the actual words of the text.

The actual words of the text can be taken in different ways.

Perhaps Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary and Bede didn’t really know what the actual words were saying?

 

[JonNC]

Now that is an interesting claim. But does that one example reflect the entirety of the tradition we see in east and west? Or does it show that Cistercians were in error? I tend to think of the latter. Who is the better example for people, Luther or Saint Maximos?

Actually, it was popes in the 15th century that approved the practice.
That said, the entirety of Tradition is a far better example, but when bishops are unavailable, or unwilling, Divine law also allows for necessary exceptions.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

The actual words of the text can be taken in different ways.

Yes, of course. The Roman Catholic interpretation claims this as the basis of the Papacy, while a Lutheran interpretation might say that Peter is a ‘stand in’ for the Church as a whole, as Norwegian Lutheran New Testament scholar Hans Kvalbein argues in the article cited above. The similarity between him and a Catholic exegete – and about any exegete there is, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Angllican, Reformed, or anything else – is that they agree that the rock is Peter. There simply is no textual support for the claim that Peter’s confession is the rock. That doesn’t mean that the confession is unimportant. Peter became the Rock because of this confession. But we have to ask what the text actually says.

Perhaps Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary and Bede didn’t really know what the actual words were saying?

I haven’t read all of them on this, but if they claimed that the Rock was the confession – and that Peter wasn’t – they were simply mistaken.