=IgnatianPhilo;12052634]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.
Actually, it was in the very early Church that presbyter ordination took place, particular since the distinction of priest/bishop had not yet played out. But certainly we can reject the practices of communions with which we disagree, just as you are with us, just as you and we do regarding the Tradition of papal supremacy, which our Catholic siblings here will kindly contend isthe Tradition of the whole Church from the time of the Fathers, including those of the East.
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.
Corruption has nothing to do with it. But that said, how many examples of presbyter ordination need there be. If those Cistercian abbots were indeed ordained, and considered valid, and their sacraments were valid, then does not that make it part of the Tradition of the Church? Yes it the best approach? No!
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.
Actually, it did happen. That is precisely what happened. That’s why we have the Augsburg Confession and its Apology.
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.
Again, you speak of rejection of AS as if it is something we do, when in fact, the opposite is true.
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.
A Lutheran would, and should agree. I do have a question about the bolded: what do you mean by it?
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?
That’s a curious question coming from an Orthodox Christian. Has not that been the case since c.1054?
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.
Source, please. We very much do accept the visible Church. It is the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. That has to be visible.
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.
You’re free to hold that opinion.
Jon
