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

[IgnatianPhilo]

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

Where does the scripture or tradition allow you that? (I think that papal decision was wrong) I go to the example of Saint Maxmios again, he like Luther was a layman and according to you he could have (and maybe should have) started his own church. I suppose I do not understand how you can maintain a practice when your founding explicitely rejects the legitimacy of such a practice. If Bishops are not needed to consecrate pastors, why have Bishops at all? Why not embrace the baptist way of doing things? It seems to me you have no legs to stand on in criticizing those protestants who would reject such practices, that seem to think it fine to simply start a church if they feel all the churches are wrong or corrupt.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Where does the scripture or tradition allow you that? (I think that papal decision was wrong) I go to the example of Saint Maxmios again, he like Luther was a layman and according to you he could have (and maybe should have) started his own church. I suppose I do not understand how you can maintain a practice when your founding explicitely rejects the legitimacy of such a practice. If Bishops are not needed to consecrate pastors, why have Bishops at all? Why not embrace the baptist way of doing things? It seems to me you have no legs to stand on in criticizing those protestants who would reject such practices, that seem to think it fine to simply start a church if they feel all the churches are wrong or corrupt.

Luther a layman?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Luther a layman?

He unlike Luther, was a layman. Thanks for spotting that.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;12047956]Where does the scripture or tradition allow you that? (I think that papal decision was wrong) I go to the example of Saint Maxmios again, he like Luther was a layman and according to you he could have (and maybe should have) started his own church.

This isn’t narrowed to Luther. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession was not written by Luther. Regardless, it was not an intent to “start a new Church”. Nothing in the confessions point to that.

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved.

Starting with the bolded, the confutators accepted our statement in Augsburg!
The red section clearly states the desire to maintain orders in the Tradition of the Church.

I suppose I do not understand how you can maintain a practice when your founding explicitely rejects the legitimacy of such a practice.** If Bishops are not needed to consecrate pastors, why have Bishops at all?** Why not embrace the baptist way of doing things? It seems to me you have no legs to stand on in criticizing those protestants who would reject such practices, that seem to think it fine to simply start a church if they feel all the churches are wrong or corrupt.

The issue was never the necessity of bishops, but the willingness (hence, availability) of bishops. Had the bishops ordained, as they were supposed to, it would not have been an issue. Since they wouldn’t, and the practice of presbyter ordination had precedent in the Church, it was a better option than parishes without sacraments! I suspect the Baptists have no qualms about having no sacraments.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Where does the scripture or tradition allow you that? (I think that papal decision was wrong) I go to the example of Saint Maxmios again, he like Luther was a layman and according to you he could have (and maybe should have) started his own church. I suppose I do not understand how you can maintain a practice when your founding explicitely rejects the legitimacy of such a practice. If Bishops are not needed to consecrate pastors, why have Bishops at all? Why not embrace the baptist way of doing things? It seems to me you have no legs to stand on in criticizing those protestants who would reject such practices, that seem to think it fine to simply start a church if they feel all the churches are wrong or corrupt.

Well, parables worked for Christ, so perhaps a hypothetical will illustrate the Lutheran viewpoint here:

A group of lay Christians, with a couple of priests, is marooned on a desert island (perhaps they were left there, perhaps they managed to put themselves in that dire situation - it does not matter). It does not appear that they will contact the rest of civilization anytime in the foreseeable future, and when they have tried to contact airplanes flying the crest of their old bishop, the planes ignore them and do not send aid. Time passes, the group finds ways to live, they multiply and their priests are unable to keep up with the workload. So the priests get together, select laymen in conjunction with the group’s elders and, in turn, ordain other priests.

Now, [Human] Tradition in the church clearly shows that the succession of bishops is the preferred method of ensuring Apostolic Succession in regards to Apostolic teaching. But I don’t see human tradition as limiting proper ordination to only those who have been ordained by a bishop, and here’s why: The power to ordain belongs to the church, in general; not to any one (or several) ordained men. Historically, yes, we humans have entrusted this power to the bishops - but the distinction between bishop and priest is a human grade and order, not divinely-required. And why shouldn’t our marooned friends then be able to call a servant of Christ to serve them? Aren’t they, acting in unison, just as much a part of the Body of Christ as a bishop? Are they not ‘church?’ Or does ‘church’ only exist in the bishop (his followers mere appendages)? If the latter, who are the sheep actually following?

 

[benjohnson]

Peter became the Rock because of this confession. But we have to ask what the text actually says.

I tend to read the “Peter/Rock” with almost the same way as Catholics read it.

However, given that you’re Lutheran - can you help me understand what if Peter is truly and only the rock (and not in addition to his confession) would not the church die with Peter?

Thanks in advance!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You say it wasn’t his intent to start a new church, yet he did. Your succession cannot be traced back to the apostles. Your church is uniquely a product of the 16th century with its theological emphasis and rejections of certain other doctrines. Now what does Article XIV mean by canonical ordination? Does it have in mind the Lutheran view of this? Wherein anyone can potentially justify making themselves a Bishop or a presbyter if they have no Bishop willing to grant them clerical rank? (you cannot deny this) Or does it have in mind the canons of the ecumenical councils? In which case you have a problem in that it is impossible to tell who is validly ordained in Lutheranism and who is not validly ordained in the Lutheran church. I suppose I don’t see that article as being consistent with the universally recognised canons and the Lutheran church’s justification for its own existence by faith alone.

It seems however you reject the necessity of Bishops (one wonders how the apostles or the ante Nicene fathers would react to such a statement) I must question why is it held with such fierceness in the Lutheran church? Is this not just a manmade tradition? Have you not already dispensed with the canons whenever or the fathers whenever they contradict the Lutheran position? Or show that your church cannot be considered apostolical? (at least by their judgement) But you further go on to justify this by the pressing need for the sacraments, of which you believe in only 2, if I am correct (if Lutherans still hold to the views as expressed in the exchange between Constantinople and Augsburg). If it requires a priest to administer the sacrament, and if you respect the traditions of the churches, traditions which tell us your church is not really a validly apostolical church as you very much admit when you deny apostolic succession, and indeed those traditions give the authority to administer the sacraments by none other, is your sacrament a real sacrament? It would seem to me the Lutherans have to dispense with all the tradition of apostolic succession, the canons of the councils and justify their existence by faith. It does you no good to appeal to the history here, but rather you should try and make your case from the bible alone. I don’t think the bible alone is enough in this regard.

I don’t buy the pretension of Lutherans to be loyal to the church or tradition. Steido wants to argue that it is human tradition (human tradition that for some reason you want to respect but ultimately have to disbelieve in order to justify your existence), but if such a tradition could have so infected the church by the second century. That this wholly unnecessary tradition of apostolical succession, the power and authority of the Bishop and indeed a lot of the practices of the Ante Nicene fathers (Ignatius and Clement and Iraneaus in parituclar) had such sway, who are you O man to think you have it more right than they? Succeeding the generation of the apostles? Now did the power to ordain lie in the church communities which the apostles established? Or was it that the apostles chose eminent men from among themselves to serve as deacons and presbyters? Did Paul leave the leadership of the churches up to them to choose, neophytes into the faith? Or did he have them under his supervision and sent teachers approved by himself and the apostles to help the fledgings? Yes the Didache says for the church to vote in the Bishop, but that nowhere denies that Bishop being recognised by his fellow Bishops first or having to be recognised by them. Nor does it deny that Bishop being ordained a Bishop by an existing Bishop.

 

[pablope]

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

Well…Jon…as I recall, there was a reason why the Pope allowed that. How does that reasoning apply to the Lutherans?

And can you point out where that Divine Law is stated somewhere that allows for exceptions (or is exemption the right word)?

And who has the final word on what that Divine Law is here on earth?

 

[pablope]

This isn’t narrowed to Luther.

The issue was never the necessity of bishops, but the willingness (hence, availability) of bishops. Had the bishops ordained, as they were supposed to, it would not have been an issue. Since they wouldn’t, and the practice of presbyter ordination had precedent in the Church, it was a better option than parishes without sacraments! I suspect the Baptists have no qualms about having no sacraments.

Jon

Well, Jon…so instead of praying for the bishop to change his mind…you then thumbed your nose at the bishop?

And instead of praying for understanding, for the bishop to do his job…or seeking to talk to the bishop to find out and understand his reasoning…and pray for him…is it then the right choice to disobey the bishop instead of letting and trusting the Holy Spirit to work and change the bishop’s mind?

And you think the HS would let the situation of no priest to administer sacraments to stay that too long?

So in effect…it looks like you threw a tantrum and did not trust in the HS to act?

 

[pablope]

Well, parables worked for Christ, so perhaps a hypothetical will illustrate the Lutheran viewpoint here:

A group of lay Christians, with a couple of priests, is marooned on a desert island (perhaps they were left there, perhaps they managed to put themselves in that dire situation - it does not matter). It does not appear that they will contact the rest of civilization anytime in the foreseeable future, and when they have tried to contact airplanes flying the crest of their old bishop, the planes ignore them and do not send aid. Time passes, the group finds ways to live, they multiply and their priests are unable to keep up with the workload. So the priests get together, select laymen in conjunction with the group’s elders and, in turn, ordain other priests.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You say it wasn’t his intent to start a new church, yet he did. Your succession cannot be traced back to the apostles. Your church is uniquely a product of the 16th century with its theological emphasis and rejections of certain other doctrines. Now what does Article XIV mean by canonical ordination? Does it have in mind the Lutheran view of this? Wherein anyone can potentially justify making themselves a Bishop or a presbyter if they have no Bishop willing to grant them clerical rank? (you cannot deny this) Or does it have in mind the canons of the ecumenical councils? In which case you have a problem in that it is impossible to tell who is validly ordained in Lutheranism and who is not validly ordained in the Lutheran church. I suppose I don’t see that article as being consistent with the universally recognised canons and the Lutheran church’s justification for its own existence by faith alone.

It seems however you reject the necessity of Bishops (one wonders how the apostles or the ante Nicene fathers would react to such a statement) I must question why is it held with such fierceness in the Lutheran church? Is this not just a manmade tradition? Have you not already dispensed with the canons whenever or the fathers whenever they contradict the Lutheran position? Or show that your church cannot be considered apostolical? (at least by their judgement) But you further go on to justify this by the pressing need for the sacraments, of which you believe in only 2, if I am correct (if Lutherans still hold to the views as expressed in the exchange between Constantinople and Augsburg). If it requires a priest to administer the sacrament, and if you respect the traditions of the churches, traditions which tell us your church is not really a validly apostolical church as you very much admit when you deny apostolic succession, and indeed those traditions give the authority to administer the sacraments by none other, is your sacrament a real sacrament? It would seem to me the Lutherans have to dispense with all the tradition of apostolic succession, the canons of the councils and justify their existence by faith. It does you no good to appeal to the history here, but rather you should try and make your case from the bible alone. I don’t think the bible alone is enough in this regard.

I don’t buy the pretension of Lutherans to be loyal to the church or tradition. Steido wants to argue that it is human tradition (human tradition that for some reason you want to respect but ultimately have to disbelieve in order to justify your existence), but if such a tradition could have so infected the church by the second century. That this wholly unnecessary tradition of apostolical succession, the power and authority of the Bishop and indeed a lot of the practices of the Ante Nicene fathers (Ignatius and Clement and Iraneaus in parituclar) had such sway, who are you O man to think you have it more right than they? Succeeding the generation of the apostles? Now did the power to ordain lie in the church communities which the apostles established? Or was it that the apostles chose eminent men from among themselves to serve as deacons and presbyters? Did Paul leave the leadership of the churches up to them to choose, neophytes into the faith? Or did he have them under his supervision and sent teachers approved by himself and the apostles to help the fledgings? Yes the Didache says for the church to vote in the Bishop, but that nowhere denies that Bishop being recognised by his fellow Bishops first or having to be recognised by them. Nor does it deny that Bishop being ordained a Bishop by an existing Bishop.

Reminder that the lack of apostolic succession for German Lutherans was also due to Pope Leo X [who narrowly escaped a plot by some cardinals to poison him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X]; a less than spectacular pontiff.

Thanks to the impute of others, particularly European Lutherans, I am becoming acquainted with the situation of how bishops were treated inside and outside Germany. In Denmark, Lutherans and Catholics were forced to worship together for a decade. Where an archbishop accepted Lutheranism, such as Sweden, apostolic succession was maintained. Meaning the very foundation of the Catholic faith including King Eric the Saint, the 14th-century visionary St Birgitta/Bridget, Saint Botvid, Saint Eskil in Södermanland, Saint Helena of Skövde and Saint Sigfrid in Småland are buried in Lutheran sites. I have cited the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue that acknowledges the line of apostolic succession in parts of Nordic and Baltic Lutheranism and the reclamation of historic succession in north America.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Reminder that the lack of apostolic succession for German Lutherans was also due to Pope Leo X [who narrowly escaped a plot by some cardinals to poison him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X];

a less than spectacular pontiff.

Thanks to the impute of others, particularly European Lutherans, I am becoming acquainted with the situation of how bishops were treated inside and outside Germany. In Denmark, Lutherans and Catholics were forced to worship together for a decade. Where an archbishop accepted Lutheranism, such as Sweden, apostolic succession was maintained. Meaning the very foundation of the Catholic faith including King Eric the Saint, the 14th-century visionary St Birgitta/Bridget, Saint Botvid, Saint Eskil in Södermanland, Saint Helena of Skövde and Saint Sigfrid in Småland are buried in Lutheran sites. I have cited the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue that acknowledges the line of apostolic succession in parts of Nordic and Baltic Lutheranism and the reclamation of historic succession in north America.

But it cannot be said for certain who within the Lutheran church today has apostolic succession can it? That the Lutherans of Denmark were in communion with the Lutherans in Germany means that they agree with the assumption of the Lutheran church that their apostolic succession is a nice thing, but wholly unnecessary.

 

[KjetilK]

But it cannot be said for certain who within the Lutheran church today has apostolic succession can it? That the Lutherans of Denmark were in communion with the Lutherans in Germany means that they agree with the assumption of the Lutheran church that their apostolic succession is a nice thing, but wholly unnecessary.

That is not how it works in the West, but I can see why you would be confused, being Greek Orthodox. AFAIK, the Eastern Orthodox churches largely followed St. Cyprian. He maintained that the validity of apostolic succession had to do not only with who ordained you, but with whom you were in communion. St. Cyprian held, therefore, that if you broke out, you lost the succession. In the Roman Catholic church, and in Western theology in general, the focus has been on St. Augustine’s theory, that the validity of apostolic succession had to do with who ordained you, and nothing more. He made a distinction between being valid and being licit. To your last comment, then, the Augustinian idea wholly ignores the opinion of the individual priest or bishop (e.g. whether or not they agree that apostolic succession is unnecessary), and asks: Are they validly ordained/consecrated? If yes, then whoever they ordains (if they are bishops) will have apostolic succession. A Catholic might say that they got it or exercises it illicitly, but that they have it validly.

The Eastern Orthodox, ‘Cypriarian’ theory, has been taken so far by some Orthodox that they do not even recognise non-Orthodox baptisms. I don’t think that applies to the most, but I think it does in (at last parts of) Russia and (at least parts of) the ROCOR churches.

Read more in entry on apostolic successionWikipedia, and two articles that discusses this: William C. Weinrich, “Cyprian, Donatism, Augustine, and Augustana VIII: Remarks on the Church and the Validity of Sacraments” (Concordia Theological Quarterly 55:4, 1991): 267-296; and Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the “Rebaptism” Crisis: Cyprian of Carthage’s Synod of Spring 256” (Theological Studies 67, 2006): 257-274.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

But it cannot be said for certain who within the Lutheran church today has apostolic succession can it? That the Lutherans of Denmark were in communion with the Lutherans in Germany means that they agree with the assumption of the Lutheran church that their apostolic succession is a nice thing, but wholly unnecessary.

You are correct, per my understanding, that Lutherans accept the historic apostolic formation of the succession of bishops but accept the circumstance of presbyter laying on of hands as cited in previous posts. Most Lutherans practice episcopacy/ apostolic succession and require all bishops/ priests to be ordained by those who also were ordained in the A.S.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12048479]Well…Jon…as I recall, there was a reason why the Pope allowed that. How does that reasoning apply to the Lutherans?

Yes, I recall there was a reason, that being the lack of availability of bishops. In the instance of the evangelical churches in central Europe, that unavailability was manifest in the bishops’ unwillingness to ordain. Where there were bishops willing to ordain, Lutherans maintained AS, which agai indicates the willingness of the Lutherans to continue in that Tradition.

And can you point out where that Divine Law is stated somewhere that allows for exceptions (or is exemption the right word)?

It is “stated” in the historic precedent of the western Church to use presbyter ordination and consider it valid.

And who has the final word on what that Divine Law is here on earth?

Great question, and one worth exploring.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12048508]Well, Jon…so instead of praying for the bishop to change his mind…you then thumbed your nose at the bishop?

And instead of praying for understanding, for the bishop to do his job…or seeking to talk to the bishop to find out and understand his reasoning…and pray for him…is it then the right choice to disobey the bishop instead of letting and trusting the Holy Spirit to work and change the bishop’s mind?

The very nature of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology was just that: an appeal for understanding. As I Pointed out, where there were bishops willing to ordain, the evangelical churches sought and received ordination in AS.

And you think the HS would let the situation of no priest to administer sacraments to stay that too long?

No, hence the use of presbyter ordination.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;12048470]You say it wasn’t his intent to start a new church, yet he did.

Whose intent? Let’s remember that this isn’t about one man. That said, your comment here returns us to the OP. The very fact that we confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ought to indicate that it was not them nor is it now, the desire among the Lutheran Church to be in division. Augsburg says as much in the conclusion: ***Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. ***

Your succession cannot be traced back to the apostles. Your church is uniquely a product of the 16th century with its theological emphasis and rejections of certain other doctrines. Now what does Article XIV mean by canonical ordination? Does it have in mind the Lutheran view of this? Wherein anyone can potentially justify making themselves a Bishop or a presbyter if they have no Bishop willing to grant them clerical rank? (you cannot deny this) Or does it have in mind the canons of the ecumenical councils?

I can and I will! In no Lutheran synod of which I am aware, can anyone simply choose to “make themselves a bishop or a presbyter”. This power belongs only to the Church. Priests are trained in and by the Church, and are ordained in the same way.

In which case you have a problem in that it is impossible to tell who is validly ordained in Lutheranism and who is not validly ordained in the Lutheran church. I suppose I don’t see that article as being consistent with the universally recognised canons and the Lutheran church’s justification for its own existence by faith alone.

Simply not the case. The roster of called and ordained pastors, in any synod, is known. Our parish right now is going through the call process, and that is always through the synod.

It seems however you reject the necessity of Bishops (one wonders how the apostles or the ante Nicene fathers would react to such a statement) I must question why is it held with such fierceness in the Lutheran church?

I suppose I should take umbrage at this apparent attempt to put words in my mouth, but instead I will clarify the Lutheran position again. No where, anywhere, in Lutheran teaching is there a rejection of bishops or the orders of the Church established by the early Church and the Fathers. Our friend Evangelcatholic regularly proclaims the regular and growing use of AS in ordination of Lutheran pastors. Leaving aside some of the issues we in the LCMS have with our siblings in the ELCA / LWF, they have here in America and internationally struck agreements with Anglican groups, part of the intent being to recapture AS.And when the day comes that a communion reaches a similar agreement with the LCMS, I completely expect it to occur for us as well.

Is this not just a manmade tradition? Have you not already dispensed with the canons whenever or the fathers whenever they contradict the Lutheran position? Or show that your church cannot be considered apostolical? (at least by their judgement) But you further go on to justify this by the pressing need for the sacraments, of which you believe in only 2, if I am correct (if Lutherans still hold to the views as expressed in the exchange between Constantinople and Augsburg). If it requires a priest to administer the sacrament, and if you respect the traditions of the churches, traditions which tell us your church is not really a validly apostolical church as you very much admit when you deny apostolic succession, and indeed those traditions give the authority to administer the sacraments by none other, is your sacrament a real sacrament? It would seem to me the Lutherans have to dispense with all the tradition of apostolic succession, the canons of the councils and justify their existence by faith. It does you no good to appeal to the history here, but rather you should try and make your case from the bible alone. I don’t think the bible alone is enough in this regard.

Overlooking the false premise of the comment, as we do not reject succession, a couple of points:
If the Church of Rome can approve and authorize presbyter ordination, how can you claim it is outside Tradition? If the early churches, either lacking bishops, or not yet recognizing varying ranks of presbyters, could ordain, how is this outside of Tradition?
Further, while the sacraments (Baptism, Absolution, Eucharist, in our definition) require clergy, we also practice all of the rites of the Church - Confirmation, unction, marriage, and yes, ordination, as well as the preaching of the word, including the necessity of a pastor.
That it seems to you that we should dispense with these, in all honesty we have not asked you to dispense with anything, and would appreciate the courtesy in return.

continued

 

[JonNC]

I don’t buy the pretension of Lutherans to be loyal to the church or tradition.

We’re not asking you to. The question was asked, and we have responded with our POV. Whether you buy it or not is not our intention, because we are not selling it. We would expect, OTOH, that you would continue to follow the teaching and Tradition of your communion, which we consider very much a part of the OHCAC.

Steido wants to argue that it is human tradition (human tradition that for some reason you want to respect but ultimately have to disbelieve in order to justify your existence), but if such a tradition could have so infected the church by the second century. That this wholly unnecessary tradition of apostolical succession, the power and authority of the Bishop and indeed a lot of the practices of the Ante Nicene fathers (Ignatius and Clement and Iraneaus in parituclar) had such sway, who are you O man to think you have it more right than they? Succeeding the generation of the apostles?

Again, “wholly unnecessary” are your words. They are not ours, nor do they express our view.

Now did the power to ordain lie in the church communities which the apostles established? Or was it that the apostles chose eminent men from among themselves to serve as deacons and presbyters? Did Paul leave the leadership of the churches up to them to choose, neophytes into the faith? Or did he have them under his supervision and sent teachers approved by himself and the apostles to help the fledgings? Yes the Didache says for the church to vote in the Bishop, but that nowhere denies that Bishop being recognised by his fellow Bishops first or having to be recognised by them. Nor does it deny that Bishop being ordained a Bishop by an existing Bishop.

Why do you think we oppose any of this?

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I am not quoting St Cyprian’s theology but rather what I see as the historic Christian practice from the apostles to the current time. That one never self-appoints oneself to the clergy or takes on a role he has not received. I simply don’t see that in the first century, the second century and all the centuries up and to now. It would seem to me you cannot condemn the more pietistic Protestants who reject every single traditional and sacramental system in this regard. Yes there has been an example given in the Cistercians but none other. Yes it can pointed out there were plenty of corrupt Orthodox and Catholic clergy, but I dare say almost all of them were ordained and were approved by some ecclesiastical figure whom held the succession. Bottom line if you have a problem with the church, you don’t start a new church if you find yourself alone, you abstain from communion and protest and history will judge you. In the Lutheran enterprise that did not happen, instead a new church was started, one which does not have its origins in Christ or the apostles or the fathers but in the mind of one revolutionary. With the rejection of apostolic succession, you cannot then cling to it and say, some of our priests have it, as if it meant anything. You cannot say it because you regard those as being in the Lutheran succession as being equally valid to those in the apostolic succession, both however being in the Lutheran succession.

It ultimately comes down to this; do we live the ecclesiastical functions of the church by faith alone? Is there no need for apostolic succession? If this historic church doctrine is to be abandoned why cannot Easter be abandoned? We don’t have it proclaimed to us that we should celebrate it in the New Testament yet it is the most ancient and powerful feast of the Christian church which comes to us solely (more or less) from tradition which tells us that it is an apostolic practice. I would say the same of apostolic succession.

In response to John. I know you confess one holy catholic and apostolic church but that formulation did not come from Lutherans but from the fathers of Nicaea and Constantinople. Lutherans consider themselves part of the one church, but did the fathers have it in mind that they were merely part of the one church, that there were other bodies outside of themselves which they were not in communion with but all of these were still part of the One body? I do not think so. Lutherans have embraced the invisible church idea, that the only true church is located invisibly and while in an ultimate sense that is true, in a practical and real sense on earth that is not the case. The body of Christ was clearly to be distinguished from the body of Arianism after Constantinople. The body of Rome was to be distinguished from the body of the east during the schism and so on and so forth. I think you cannot accept what is meant by oneness here. Certainty the other marks, Holy, Catholic, you accept, but I do not think you accept apostolicity in all its implications. The fathers of Nicaea saw themselves as the successors of the apostles, the authorities of the church in succession to them. Lutherans will say they are apostolic in faith but I do not think there is the same connotation.

As for the Ausberg statement that nothing has been received which is contrary to the Catholic church, I obviously beg to differ in regards to your acceptance of Sola scriptura, the definition of sola fide, the rejection of apostolic succession, the rejection of the whole church being located on earth visibly and other doctrines and practices I’m sure your well aware of. But I do find it interesting that you say no one had the authority to ordain themselves a Bishop. Who then ordained the first German Lutheran Bishops? Was it the Bishops from neighbouring countries who joined the protestant endeavour? Was it the presbyters that left communion with Rome? I would like you to share that history with me if you can. But I think on principle if apostolical succession is a non-important and non-essential thing, why can’t someone ordain themselves on the justification of faith alone? That they have a community that needs the sacrament but that they cannot have it because everyone else regards them as heretics from the true faith? Faith alone should justify them in this course no?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You ask me if Rome can approve of presbyter ordination without the presence of the Bishop, how can Rome be outside of the tradition? The question might rightly be asked, If Rome can claim supremacy over all the churches to judge in whatever way it sees fit in any church for any reason how can you reject that tradition? Is the tradition old or is it new? The 15th century is the only tradition to which you can appeal to justify the Lutheran position. What about the 10th century? What about the fifth or second centuries? That said I will admit ignorance on the Cistercian ordinations; did the pope himself approve these ordinations? Perhaps himself not being able to be present to ordain the priests in person? In which case you have a Bishop approving of the ordination and not being able to do in person or have a Bishop do it in person and that would mean that the succession might be continued from him. Or was it that they ordained without a Bishop’s authority or consent and then later received approval? The latter would be clearly wrong, the former is debatable. I am unaware of such a thing happening within the Orthodox Church, though I am willing to be shown that if it happened I would have to rethink my position. But the general and historic practice is this, you do not ordain yourself, presbyters do not ordain other presbyters, presbyters in council do not ordain Bishops (though they might elect the Bishop), three Bishops from separate regions ordain and approve the ordination of one Bishop and then enthrone the bishop. That is the pattern laid out to us in history, specifically the pattern as laid out in the councils. Do Lutherans conform to this pattern?

I apologize if I have misunderstood your position; believe me I am trying to understand whilst being critical at the same time. I do find it fascinating that you consider the Orthodox part of the OHCAC, why is that?​